I don't have time to write a treatise on the nature of knowledge here, but I think you're making a false dichotomy between "knowledge about nature" as collected by scientists, and "knowledge about God" as collected by theologists.
It's disingenuous to suggest that religious beliefs are supported only by blind faith. That is just as unreasonable as saying the same about science.
There are things in the sphere of my religious beliefs that I take on faith. There are things in the sphere of scientific knowledge that you take on faith.
We both work to harmonize what we know in the area of science with the world that we explore. I include religious beliefs, based on far more than mere faith.
If you genuinely believe that religion is based totally on "unreasonable" faith, you you should explore faith with a thoughtful Christian.
1. Mutations are not adaptations. Adaptations are mostly beneficial. I submit that mutations are generally bad. Tell my nephew with Down Syndrome that mutations are not generally bad for him.
2. There's a world of difference between acknowledging that bias exists in science, and denying all benefit from good science. Talk about your logical leaps!
Of course I go to the doctor. God heals miraculously sometimes. Most times the miracle is penicillin or the relevant equivalent. God gives us a mind and the ability to reason. These are frequently used in ways that are beneficial. God also heals in ways that don't make sense to science sometimes. Don't believe me? Talk to a doctor who has been around the block a few times - they all know that doctors don't heal - they facilitate the process of healing.
3. It is ridiculous to assert that the Bible should be interpreted in a wooden literal sense. The Bible contains poetry, prose, narrative, and parable. Reading poetry as literal description is foolishness, and a bit of a red herring. If not a red herring, it demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance on your part.
There's a whole discipline related to understanding scripture, but it can be very simplistically comnmunicated as "the plain things are the main things." Use your head!
Some dude did pray for the sun to stop, (Joshua in Joshua chapter 10) and the Bible says that it did. It says something similar in 2 Kings chapter 20 about Hezekiah.
Did it? I think it did, or it certainly appeared to in that area. Can that be explained by someone who has a commitment to naturalism? Probably not. Does that mean that it didn't happen? I don't know, but I'm inclined to give God the benefit of the doubt because of the consistency that I see in the majority of the rest of the Bible.
4. If the real explanation is something supernatural, how is it unreasonable to consider that the supernatural is a possibility? Doesn't it seem unreasonable to suggest that the supernatural is impossible?
5. Evolutionists do not hold the "proof" that their theory is correct. It is a description that fits many of the facts, but does not fit them all. Creationists have an explanation that fits many of the facts. If you are convinced that evolution is the complete explanation for all the variety and complexity of life, then I submit to you that you probably have not studied this issue much. Evolution is not a great explanation, but it's the best naturalistic explanation that scientists have been able to come up with.
1. What you call 'tweaking' I would call microevolution, and we are in agreement. This is demonstrable using the scientific method.
2. So-called transitional forms. Perhaps they are transitional, perhaps they are unique species that are unrelated to one another. We see that they exist, and have similar forms - but which came first? We have evidence, but what do the facts *mean*? I submit to you that we cannot be certain that they are directly related. Perhaps they are merely similar.
3. What about irreducible complexity? The following example comes from Behe's book "Darwin's black box" - a mousetrap has a certain number of requisite parts to function. Removal of even one of those parts, and it ceases to function as a mousetrap. They have to be present, in the right order, and assembled properly to function. From a functioning mousetrap, you can make modifications for a better release, stronger spring, harder bar, etc.
You can't tweak a non-functioning mousetrap.
In the same way, how does the human eye tweak its way into existence? You need the lens, cornea, optic nerve, something in the brain to proces the input from the optic nerve, sensors, etc.
Irreducible complexity is a BIG problem for evolution, and really has no good explanations, save Gould's punctuated equilibrium, which I see as a clumsy way to fit the facts to his world view.
4. Mutations are almost universally bad for you, but evolution hangs its hat on mutations and time - so much so that there's scarcely enough time in the known universe to account for all of what is needed to explain what we see today.
5. "Holy writings said the earth was flat." Rubbish. They never did. The church was wrong to do what it did, but the Bible never claimed a flat earth.
Ptolemy said the earth was the center, and this was conventional wisdom until Copernicus proved it was wrong. That was my point, but apparently you missed it.
6. Creation science as religious dogma. This one is precious. We all have a worldview bias. Creationists, evolutionists, deists, atheists - all of us. Science is pressed forward by people with a bias. Many times this is a good thing, many times it is not. Please don't give me that 'white coat syndrome' 'we're only about truth' business. Anyone who really believes that has never spent time on a university campus around reseach director PhD's. I submit to you that there's more atheistic dogma in science than there is any other religious dogma.
If science was really about truth, it would be considered unreasonable to have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism.' If the best reasonable explanation is that something supernatural occured, perhaps that's really the answer. Unfortunately that's not in vogue today. Our champions of science from history have been deists. I'm not sure when they decided God was dead. It's definitely a fad.
In addition to my proactive filtering, I think it's a good idea for the government to limit the graphic violence and sexuality sent over the air to my neighbors (or to me.)
From a practical standpoint, while TV/Movie producers stand on a "freedom of speech" platform, their expressions have almost nothing to do with political expression, and everything to do with a mindless appeal to the base nature of man. Why should we promote that? Let's promote media that stimulates people to think, not just to be aroused from an erotic or violence standpoint. I have to give Michael Moore this much. His programming, while disagreeable to me, is really about a political statement and even though I may find it distasteful, he is well within his rights to develop his films.
I don't even let my kids watch most kids programs - because most of them fall into one of two camps: 1. product marketing/tie-in 2. Bad examples of attitudes or behavior.
My kids have lots of toys. Ads convincing them to become materialistic won't make them happier, and I'm happy to help them avoid that trap.
I don't know about your family, but my kids think up enough ways on their own to do bad things that I don't need a constant flow of bad ideas pumped into their heads.
I can recall an episode of Arthur where within a 1 minute period every child lied to an adult and got away with it. Why does this need to be demonstrated for my kids? Rubbish!
As a parent, it's my job to determine what my kids can handle, and limit their consumption accordingly. Over time, as my kids develop the requisite skills for making good choices, my wife and I will give them more freedom to choose. Eventually they will need to live on their own, and it's our job to become obsolete.
Until then, I'm quite comfortable pushing the FCC to limit nudity and violence that is available over the airwaves. As a citizen, that resource is a public trust, and my opinions about what is appropriate for that medium are just as valid as anyone else's.
FWIW - my kids are extremely well behaved, love to read books, respect adults, and are quite happily emotionally connected with both mom and dad. {and they are smarter and better looking than everyone else's kids, too:) }
Lack of access to most TV media has not ruined them so far, and I doubt that it will.
This is a reason given be many for rejection of organized religion in general and Christianity in specific. I would submit two theses to you for your consideration:
1. Far greater good has been done in the name of Christ than evil. This offers no excuse for abuse and evil deeds. Those who do this will stand in judgment. Christ said that it is better to have a millstone attached to you and be cast into the sea than to lead his children astray - how much more punishment is due to those who do evil in His name?
2. It is not wise to judge a philosophy on the basis of a wacko (or several wackos.) It is better to judge a philosophy on this basis: What is the natural outcome of keeping close hold to the explicit teachings of that philosophy?
Christ and his disciples were radicals who challenge the status quo, but they were not bent on power or abusing others.
What is the logical outcome of closely following the teachings of Christ and his disciples as documented in scripture?
What is the logical outcome of a belief that there is no universal arbiter of truth?
Which philosophy would you have dominate the world's peoples?
There are those who would argue that teachings that have 'an a priori commitment to naturalism' are just as religious as those who have an a priori commitment to supernatural creation.
Steven Jay Gould communicated the idea above - an affirmation of Lewontin's assertion. Gould concluded that Macroevolution has a strong foundation in naturalism - a philosophy that specifically excludes anything supernatural - and therefore excludes God. This seems to me to be as much of a religious belief as that of creationism.
In case you are not aware, ther recently deceased Gould (May 02) was one of the most intelligent and eloquent proponents of evolution in the present day. He developed the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution to compensate for the gaps in the fossil record. He was not on the fringe of evolutionary theory. I believe that his view is consistent with the majority of scientists who are evolutionists.
And there's an assumption that the rate of accumulation of ice is relatively constant. This process is accepted procedure in scientific circles, and it *may* be accurate, but it may not be also.
I've done a fair bit of study of the creation science vs evolution issue. Creationists and evolutionists have the same physical evidence. They draw different conclusions based on that evidence.
Most serious creationists are not the flaming morons that they are assumed to be in Slashdot circles. They are not (mostly) intellectual midgets, although those type of folks do exist, and unfortunately many of them tend to say things that are not wise.
Most of the intellectual creationists that I know personally, and those whose works I have read would agree that evolution is provable. Microevolution (adaptation) does repeat in nature and under lab conditions, is observable, and therefore is scientifically documented. Who can argue with good science?
Macroevolution (from one type of creature to another) has not been observed, and the physical evidence can be interpreted to support that, or perhaps not. It's current scientific thought that this is what happened, but there was a time that that the prevailing scientific wisdom was that the earth was the center of the universe. Today we reject that. At some point science may reject Macroevolution, too.
FWIW - there are those who would suggest that having been raised with an absence of religious teaching, or with anti-religious teaching would constitute a 'twisted upbringing,' too.
Respectfully, Anomaly
Re:What about evidence?
on
War Kayaking
·
· Score: 1
So it is a matter of faith, then. OK. I'll stop bothering you.
From a logical perspective, the only way that you can positively assert that no God exists is to be certain of that.
The only way to be certain of that is for you to have all knowledge of the universe simultaneously.
As an example, let's say that you were looking for a small boy, and you thought that he was in a house. Is he present or absent?
If you look in room A, and then look in room B, you can't say for sure that he was not it room B while you were in room A, and then in room A while you were in room B.
If you could see all parts of all of the rooms in the house at the same time, you could say with certainty that the boy was not present in the house. Other than that, after a search you could say that it is very likely that he is not in the house, but not that he was not present at all.
In the same way, I submit to you that it is possible that God exists, and you have not seen Him. Would you agree that this is a possibility?
Lack of evidence seems to suggest a lack of existence of your theoretical unicorn.
The order and precision in the universe, along with the complexity of life and biological systems tends to suggest some contribution of an intelligent designer.
The question is whether you will investigate the evidenc for a designer with an open mind. I believe that the likelihood of an invisible pink unicorn is low given the evidence. Got any evidence to suggest that it *does* exist?
Who would have thought that it would be an 'upsell' to buy Linksys - they're the cheap brand....:)
That having been said, I've had rock solid performance under Windows and Linux with Linksys 802.11b cards.
I've had problems getting my Powerbook to talk nicely to several non Apple access points. Of course, Apple support has told me to "talk to the hand."
They suggested that it could be environmental interference until I told them that the Linux box with the Linksys card sitting next to the Powerbook worked just fine.
As it stands, I have settled on setting up 2 access points on my home network, and when the mac drops connection to one, I force a connection to the other. Interestingly, the mac's behavior has been equally bad with Siemens, DLink, and Netgear (802.11g) access points.
I recently procured a Belkin USB WLAN interface for my Tivo, and it was flawless to install and get running using WEP.
I have to say that configuring the Powerbook to use WEP was at least as hard as configuring the Linux boxes. Who knew?
I'm sitting here installing whitebox linux on my RHL 9 box at home as I type.
Thanks for your hard work.
My company has settled on RHEL for our enterprise build of Linux, but I haven't been able to get the funding I need from my department to procure a test server and licenses for RHEL3.
This will come in time, but I need to do engineering work TODAY for RHEL boxes that will be production this month.
I have been able to leverage WBL to build a test lab and validate the processes that will be used on the production boxes with a pretty high degree of confidence that what works in the lab will run fine in production.
Without WBL, I'd have spent weeks preparing justifications for hardware purchases and software purchases, and that would have delayed this project significantly.
Since I had access to a great distro that is highly compatible with RHEL, I've made great progress. I really appreciate your labors!
I've only run into a couple of problems applying RHEL errata to the WBL box - related to RPM issues more than anything else.
Other than that, I've loved working with this product, and just passed off a set of media to another engineer as the team was building the VMWare Linux image for many many other tests.
I would have emailed you privately, but your email address is not shown.
I'm curious. Isn't there a bit of a conflict between your posting and Mt 22:21? Based on reading your.sig I'm assuming that you are a follower of Christ.
I've noticed that the slow lane (far right) appears to have the optimal flow rate for a highly congested highway.
I used to drive on a major highway daily where the traffic was literally bumper to bumper, stop and go. During rush hour, the fastest route (except HOV lanes) was to stick to the far right, even to stay in the "local lanes" on the right of the jersey wall.
It doesn't make sense to me, but that tactic has shaved hours off my commute time over the years.
Just a thought.
Additional rights?
on
Beyond Pay?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Should our society establish civil rights on the basis of behavior?
For example: I drive a station wagon. Some other drivers don't like that. I like Linux. Some people think that it's nerdy to use Linux. I like Mac OS X. Some computer users (eve n some linux-likers) look down on me for that. I like to go for walks. Some people get upset when others get exercise while they sit. I like to sing. Some people don't like the kind of songs I sing.
It is conceivable that an argument could be made that each of those activities is one that could be the subject of discrimination.
When our society begins to establish protected classes of citizens on the basis of behavior alone, there will be no end to the number and types of protected classes.
As such, it doesn't sound like a good idea to use behavior as a standard.
1) According to his profile he's 28. I seriously doubt that acting as the LEGO master builder will be a satisfying position for the next 40 years. It's probably a great job for him today, and I bet he will love it for a while - perhaps even for several years. As time passes we mature and what satisfied us before becomes less satisfying. When we want to move on or move up, we need skills to take us there.
2) Schools have little to do with education. We must constantly be students in order to grow. As geeks, we must be students of technology, but as people we must be students of people and that means learning people skills and communications skills.
My primary point is that we cannot believe that geekiness is the sole key to career success. It seems to me that the blogger is showing his ignorance of his native tongue. You don't have to use large words to communicate well. In fact doing so is frequently detrimental to the communications process. However, all of us judge by appearances, and in cyberspace ones writing provides the greatest view of the individual.
I've been working on this for work, and have been pleased with the systemrescue cd
I've got a primary system from which to create my "gold disk." I have installed/configured the OS and third-party applications in a meaningful way.
The process that I've followed is to create an image of the pristine system using partimage (on the rescue CD) and a copy of the boot sector using sfdisk (on the rescue CD) then create installation scripts that rewrite the partition table and dump the image to the hard disk. Finally I created a "gold CD."
One advantage I have is that I can count on pretty consistent hardware.
YMMV.
Regards,
Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more, please email me.
I know that there's a whole cultural experience around blogging that includes acronyms, but the inapproriate punctuation and grammar shows that this candidate lacks communications skills.
Will this disqualify him from this particular job? Perhaps, perhaps not. What it means is that it is unlikely that this candidate has what it takes to grow beyond that role.
Communications skills and people skills are what determine the influence that you can have within an organization.
Have you been the victim of unfair promotion within the workplace? Have you seen people with lesser skills move ahead?
It's probable that the reason behind this "crazy" promotion is that your written and verbal communications combined with your ability to get along with and/or lead people are somewhat less than those of the person promoted past you.
The "Big Lie" that we geeks tell ourselves is that intelligence and technical prowess alone are the determining factors in career growth. They are not the most important factors. I'll share a recent insightful quote: "The one who knows 'how' will always have a job. The one why knows 'why' will always be his boss." (Maxwell, Thinking for a Change)
Practice in blogging skills like his is unlikely to help develop skills needed for career growth.
Respectfully, Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more, please email me.
But the world is not a neatly packaged economically efficient engine.
For example, our trade deficit with China more than funds their defense budget. We effectively pay them to produce missles that they point at us, and to create governmental structures that imprison and torture their citizens without the benefit of due process.
If we look at countries with more open policies toward business and profits, the challenge is that the profits go to the companies not the workers directly.
I concur that people worldwide need our help. I choose to give to organizations that I know provide help and have relatively low overhead costs so that the maximum benefit goes to the people who need it.
I mean you no disrespect, but it seems a bit selfish to say that you buy the cheapest thing available (so that you get what you want) and view that as a charitable contribution to others. Perhaps this is more a reflection on our cultural viewpoint overall than it is a reflection on you personally.
So are you willing to: a) try to live in the US on the median worldwide income, or b) relocate so that your egalitarian view of wealth redistribution can allow you to live on what you could make in the developing world?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have time to write a treatise on the nature of knowledge here, but I think you're making a false dichotomy between "knowledge about nature" as collected by scientists, and "knowledge about God" as collected by theologists.
It's disingenuous to suggest that religious beliefs are supported only by blind faith. That is just as unreasonable as saying the same about science.
There are things in the sphere of my religious beliefs that I take on faith. There are things in the sphere of scientific knowledge that you take on faith.
We both work to harmonize what we know in the area of science with the world that we explore. I include religious beliefs, based on far more than mere faith.
If you genuinely believe that religion is based totally on "unreasonable" faith, you you should explore faith with a thoughtful Christian.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
1. Mutations are not adaptations. Adaptations are mostly beneficial. I submit that mutations are generally bad. Tell my nephew with Down Syndrome that mutations are not generally bad for him.
2. There's a world of difference between acknowledging that bias exists in science, and denying all benefit from good science. Talk about your logical leaps!
Of course I go to the doctor. God heals miraculously sometimes. Most times the miracle is penicillin or the relevant equivalent. God gives us a mind and the ability to reason. These are frequently used in ways that are beneficial. God also heals in ways that don't make sense to science sometimes. Don't believe me? Talk to a doctor who has been around the block a few times - they all know that doctors don't heal - they facilitate the process of healing.
3. It is ridiculous to assert that the Bible should be interpreted in a wooden literal sense. The Bible contains poetry, prose, narrative, and parable. Reading poetry as literal description is foolishness, and a bit of a red herring. If not a red herring, it demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance on your part.
There's a whole discipline related to understanding scripture, but it can be very simplistically comnmunicated as "the plain things are the main things." Use your head!
Some dude did pray for the sun to stop, (Joshua in Joshua chapter 10) and the Bible says that it did. It says something similar in 2 Kings chapter 20 about Hezekiah.
Did it? I think it did, or it certainly appeared to in that area. Can that be explained by someone who has a commitment to naturalism? Probably not. Does that mean that it didn't happen? I don't know, but I'm inclined to give God the benefit of the doubt because of the consistency that I see in the majority of the rest of the Bible.
4. If the real explanation is something supernatural, how is it unreasonable to consider that the supernatural is a possibility? Doesn't it seem unreasonable to suggest that the supernatural is impossible?
5. Evolutionists do not hold the "proof" that their theory is correct. It is a description that fits many of the facts, but does not fit them all. Creationists have an explanation that fits many of the facts. If you are convinced that evolution is the complete explanation for all the variety and complexity of life, then I submit to you that you probably have not studied this issue much. Evolution is not a great explanation, but it's the best naturalistic explanation that scientists have been able to come up with.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
1. What you call 'tweaking' I would call microevolution, and we are in agreement. This is demonstrable using the scientific method.
2. So-called transitional forms. Perhaps they are transitional, perhaps they are unique species that are unrelated to one another. We see that they exist, and have similar forms - but which came first? We have evidence, but what do the facts *mean*? I submit to you that we cannot be certain that they are directly related. Perhaps they are merely similar.
3. What about irreducible complexity? The following example comes from Behe's book "Darwin's black box" - a mousetrap has a certain number of requisite parts to function. Removal of even one of those parts, and it ceases to function as a mousetrap. They have to be present, in the right order, and assembled properly to function. From a functioning mousetrap, you can make modifications for a better release, stronger spring, harder bar, etc.
You can't tweak a non-functioning mousetrap.
In the same way, how does the human eye tweak its way into existence? You need the lens, cornea, optic nerve, something in the brain to proces the input from the optic nerve, sensors, etc.
Irreducible complexity is a BIG problem for evolution, and really has no good explanations, save Gould's punctuated equilibrium, which I see as a clumsy way to fit the facts to his world view.
4. Mutations are almost universally bad for you, but evolution hangs its hat on mutations and time - so much so that there's scarcely enough time in the known universe to account for all of what is needed to explain what we see today.
5. "Holy writings said the earth was flat." Rubbish. They never did. The church was wrong to do what it did, but the Bible never claimed a flat earth.
Ptolemy said the earth was the center, and this was conventional wisdom until Copernicus proved it was wrong. That was my point, but apparently you missed it.
6. Creation science as religious dogma. This one is precious. We all have a worldview bias. Creationists, evolutionists, deists, atheists - all of us. Science is pressed forward by people with a bias. Many times this is a good thing, many times it is not. Please don't give me that 'white coat syndrome' 'we're only about truth' business. Anyone who really believes that has never spent time on a university campus around reseach director PhD's. I submit to you that there's more atheistic dogma in science than there is any other religious dogma.
If science was really about truth, it would be considered unreasonable to have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism.' If the best reasonable explanation is that something supernatural occured, perhaps that's really the answer. Unfortunately that's not in vogue today. Our champions of science from history have been deists. I'm not sure when they decided God was dead. It's definitely a fad.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I'm not keen on nudiy *or* violence on TV.
:) }
As a parent I filter what my kids see.
In addition to my proactive filtering, I think it's a good idea for the government to limit the graphic violence and sexuality sent over the air to my neighbors (or to me.)
From a practical standpoint, while TV/Movie producers stand on a "freedom of speech" platform, their expressions have almost nothing to do with political expression, and everything to do with a mindless appeal to the base nature of man. Why should we promote that? Let's promote media that stimulates people to think, not just to be aroused from an erotic or violence standpoint. I have to give Michael Moore this much. His programming, while disagreeable to me, is really about a political statement and even though I may find it distasteful, he is well within his rights to develop his films.
I don't even let my kids watch most kids programs - because most of them fall into one of two camps:
1. product marketing/tie-in
2. Bad examples of attitudes or behavior.
My kids have lots of toys. Ads convincing them to become materialistic won't make them happier, and I'm happy to help them avoid that trap.
I don't know about your family, but my kids think up enough ways on their own to do bad things that I don't need a constant flow of bad ideas pumped into their heads.
I can recall an episode of Arthur where within a 1 minute period every child lied to an adult and got away with it. Why does this need to be demonstrated for my kids? Rubbish!
As a parent, it's my job to determine what my kids can handle, and limit their consumption accordingly. Over time, as my kids develop the requisite skills for making good choices, my wife and I will give them more freedom to choose. Eventually they will need to live on their own, and it's our job to become obsolete.
Until then, I'm quite comfortable pushing the FCC to limit nudity and violence that is available over the airwaves. As a citizen, that resource is a public trust, and my opinions about what is appropriate for that medium are just as valid as anyone else's.
FWIW - my kids are extremely well behaved, love to read books, respect adults, and are quite happily emotionally connected with both mom and dad. {and they are smarter and better looking than everyone else's kids, too
Lack of access to most TV media has not ruined them so far, and I doubt that it will.
Just my 0.02 (US)
Regards,
Anomaly
The example you list is one in which a type increased in size, on in which it went from one type to another.
Please try another example to convince me.
Regards,
Anomaly
This is a reason given be many for rejection of organized religion in general and Christianity in specific. I would submit two theses to you for your consideration:
1. Far greater good has been done in the name of Christ than evil. This offers no excuse for abuse and evil deeds. Those who do this will stand in judgment. Christ said that it is better to have a millstone attached to you and be cast into the sea than to lead his children astray - how much more punishment is due to those who do evil in His name?
2. It is not wise to judge a philosophy on the basis of a wacko (or several wackos.) It is better to judge a philosophy on this basis: What is the natural outcome of keeping close hold to the explicit teachings of that philosophy?
Christ and his disciples were radicals who challenge the status quo, but they were not bent on power or abusing others.
What is the logical outcome of closely following the teachings of Christ and his disciples as documented in scripture?
What is the logical outcome of a belief that there is no universal arbiter of truth?
Which philosophy would you have dominate the world's peoples?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
There are those who would argue that teachings that have 'an a priori commitment to naturalism' are just as religious as those who have an a priori commitment to supernatural creation.
Steven Jay Gould communicated the idea above - an affirmation of Lewontin's assertion. Gould concluded that Macroevolution has a strong foundation in naturalism - a philosophy that specifically excludes anything supernatural - and therefore excludes God. This seems to me to be as much of a religious belief as that of creationism.
In case you are not aware, ther recently deceased Gould (May 02) was one of the most intelligent and eloquent proponents of evolution in the present day. He developed the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution to compensate for the gaps in the fossil record. He was not on the fringe of evolutionary theory. I believe that his view is consistent with the majority of scientists who are evolutionists.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
And there's an assumption that the rate of accumulation of ice is relatively constant. This process is accepted procedure in scientific circles, and it *may* be accurate, but it may not be also.
I've done a fair bit of study of the creation science vs evolution issue. Creationists and evolutionists have the same physical evidence. They draw different conclusions based on that evidence.
Most serious creationists are not the flaming morons that they are assumed to be in Slashdot circles. They are not (mostly) intellectual midgets, although those type of folks do exist, and unfortunately many of them tend to say things that are not wise.
Most of the intellectual creationists that I know personally, and those whose works I have read would agree that evolution is provable. Microevolution (adaptation) does repeat in nature and under lab conditions, is observable, and therefore is scientifically documented. Who can argue with good science?
Macroevolution (from one type of creature to another) has not been observed, and the physical evidence can be interpreted to support that, or perhaps not. It's current scientific thought that this is what happened, but there was a time that that the prevailing scientific wisdom was that the earth was the center of the universe. Today we reject that. At some point science may reject Macroevolution, too.
FWIW - there are those who would suggest that having been raised with an absence of religious teaching, or with anti-religious teaching would constitute a 'twisted upbringing,' too.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
So it is a matter of faith, then. OK. I'll stop bothering you.
:)
Nothing to see here......
Anomaly
Is there any evidence that would be sufficient to change your position on that issue, or is the nonexistance of a god merely a point of faith for you?
From a logical perspective, the only way that you can positively assert that no God exists is to be certain of that.
The only way to be certain of that is for you to have all knowledge of the universe simultaneously.
As an example, let's say that you were looking for a small boy, and you thought that he was in a house. Is he present or absent?
If you look in room A, and then look in room B, you can't say for sure that he was not it room B while you were in room A, and then in room A while you were in room B.
If you could see all parts of all of the rooms in the house at the same time, you could say with certainty that the boy was not present in the house. Other than that, after a search you could say that it is very likely that he is not in the house, but not that he was not present at all.
In the same way, I submit to you that it is possible that God exists, and you have not seen Him. Would you agree that this is a possibility?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Lack of evidence seems to suggest a lack of existence of your theoretical unicorn.
The order and precision in the universe, along with the complexity of life and biological systems tends to suggest some contribution of an intelligent designer.
The question is whether you will investigate the evidenc for a designer with an open mind. I believe that the likelihood of an invisible pink unicorn is low given the evidence. Got any evidence to suggest that it *does* exist?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
On what authority do you make that negative assertion? I submit to you that it is logically inconsistent for you to make that assertion.
:)
Disagree? Email or post a reply!
Anomaly
BTW - I agree that there are many places on the planet more interesting than Seattle.
On what authority do you assert that there is no God?
Who would have thought that it would be an 'upsell' to buy Linksys - they're the cheap brand.... :)
That having been said, I've had rock solid performance under Windows and Linux with Linksys 802.11b cards.
I've had problems getting my Powerbook to talk nicely to several non Apple access points. Of course, Apple support has told me to "talk to the hand."
They suggested that it could be environmental interference until I told them that the Linux box with the Linksys card sitting next to the Powerbook worked just fine.
As it stands, I have settled on setting up 2 access points on my home network, and when the mac drops connection to one, I force a connection to the other. Interestingly, the mac's behavior has been equally bad with Siemens, DLink, and Netgear (802.11g) access points.
I recently procured a Belkin USB WLAN interface for my Tivo, and it was flawless to install and get running using WEP.
I have to say that configuring the Powerbook to use WEP was at least as hard as configuring the Linux boxes. Who knew?
I understand hacking for the sake of hacking, but doesn't it seem wrong to you that there's not a legal use of the numbers that you are publishing?
People don't have to use MS software. Why help them do it illegally?
I'm sitting here installing whitebox linux on my RHL 9 box at home as I type.
Thanks for your hard work.
My company has settled on RHEL for our enterprise build of Linux, but I haven't been able to get the funding I need from my department to procure a test server and licenses for RHEL3.
This will come in time, but I need to do engineering work TODAY for RHEL boxes that will be production this month.
I have been able to leverage WBL to build a test lab and validate the processes that will be used on the production boxes with a pretty high degree of confidence that what works in the lab will run fine in production.
Without WBL, I'd have spent weeks preparing justifications for hardware purchases and software purchases, and that would have delayed this project significantly.
Since I had access to a great distro that is highly compatible with RHEL, I've made great progress. I really appreciate your labors!
I've only run into a couple of problems applying RHEL errata to the WBL box - related to RPM issues more than anything else.
Other than that, I've loved working with this product, and just passed off a set of media to another engineer as the team was building the VMWare Linux image for many many other tests.
Regards,
Anomaly
I would have emailed you privately, but your email address is not shown.
.sig I'm assuming that you are a follower of Christ.
I'm curious. Isn't there a bit of a conflict between your posting and Mt 22:21? Based on reading your
In Him,
Tom Cooper
I've noticed that the slow lane (far right) appears to have the optimal flow rate for a highly congested highway.
I used to drive on a major highway daily where the traffic was literally bumper to bumper, stop and go. During rush hour, the fastest route (except HOV lanes) was to stick to the far right, even to stay in the "local lanes" on the right of the jersey wall.
It doesn't make sense to me, but that tactic has shaved hours off my commute time over the years.
Just a thought.
Should our society establish civil rights on the basis of behavior?
For example:
I drive a station wagon. Some other drivers don't like that.
I like Linux. Some people think that it's nerdy to use Linux.
I like Mac OS X. Some computer users (eve n some linux-likers) look down on me for that.
I like to go for walks. Some people get upset when others get exercise while they sit.
I like to sing. Some people don't like the kind of songs I sing.
It is conceivable that an argument could be made that each of those activities is one that could be the subject of discrimination.
When our society begins to establish protected classes of citizens on the basis of behavior alone, there will be no end to the number and types of protected classes.
As such, it doesn't sound like a good idea to use behavior as a standard.
1) According to his profile he's 28. I seriously doubt that acting as the LEGO master builder will be a satisfying position for the next 40 years. It's probably a great job for him today, and I bet he will love it for a while - perhaps even for several years. As time passes we mature and what satisfied us before becomes less satisfying. When we want to move on or move up, we need skills to take us there.
2) Schools have little to do with education. We must constantly be students in order to grow. As geeks, we must be students of technology, but as people we must be students of people and that means learning people skills and communications skills.
My primary point is that we cannot believe that geekiness is the sole key to career success. It seems to me that the blogger is showing his ignorance of his native tongue. You don't have to use large words to communicate well. In fact doing so is frequently detrimental to the communications process. However, all of us judge by appearances, and in cyberspace ones writing provides the greatest view of the individual.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I've been working on this for work, and have been pleased with the systemrescue cd
I've got a primary system from which to create my "gold disk." I have installed/configured the OS and third-party applications in a meaningful way.
The process that I've followed is to create an image of the pristine system using partimage (on the rescue CD) and a copy of the boot sector using sfdisk (on the rescue CD) then create installation scripts that rewrite the partition table and dump the image to the hard disk. Finally I created a "gold CD."
One advantage I have is that I can count on pretty consistent hardware.
YMMV.
Regards,
Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more, please email me.
Because with the army of assistants, he apparently knew by squinting into the viewfinder whether it would be a "money shot" or not.
Knowing that is far more valuable than the technical skills needed to set up the kit for the shot. That's what makes the difference.
I know that there's a whole cultural experience around blogging that includes acronyms, but the inapproriate punctuation and grammar shows that this candidate lacks communications skills.
Will this disqualify him from this particular job? Perhaps, perhaps not. What it means is that it is unlikely that this candidate has what it takes to grow beyond that role.
Communications skills and people skills are what determine the influence that you can have within an organization.
Have you been the victim of unfair promotion within the workplace? Have you seen people with lesser skills move ahead?
It's probable that the reason behind this "crazy" promotion is that your written and verbal communications combined with your ability to get along with and/or lead people are somewhat less than those of the person promoted past you.
The "Big Lie" that we geeks tell ourselves is that intelligence and technical prowess alone are the determining factors in career growth. They are not the most important factors. I'll share a recent insightful quote:
"The one who knows 'how' will always have a job. The one why knows 'why' will always be his boss." (Maxwell, Thinking for a Change)
Practice in blogging skills like his is unlikely to help develop skills needed for career growth.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more, please email me.
But the world is not a neatly packaged economically efficient engine.
For example, our trade deficit with China more than funds their defense budget. We effectively pay them to produce missles that they point at us, and to create governmental structures that imprison and torture their citizens without the benefit of due process.
If we look at countries with more open policies toward business and profits, the challenge is that the profits go to the companies not the workers directly.
I concur that people worldwide need our help. I choose to give to organizations that I know provide help and have relatively low overhead costs so that the maximum benefit goes to the people who need it.
I mean you no disrespect, but it seems a bit selfish to say that you buy the cheapest thing available (so that you get what you want) and view that as a charitable contribution to others. Perhaps this is more a reflection on our cultural viewpoint overall than it is a reflection on you personally.
So are you willing to:
a) try to live in the US on the median worldwide income, or
b) relocate so that your egalitarian view of wealth redistribution can allow you to live on what you could make in the developing world?
Respectfully,
Anomaly