Frank Zappa reckoned it's also because many of them are barely competent drones (he had a bad experience with the LSO). A bit harsh, but probably fair.
There's a few in Australia too. Of course, thery're the same right-wing fucktards who still think invading Vietraq was absolutely brilliant, so that gives you an idea of their ability to examine evidence.
I just get so pissed off with our dickhead government (in Australia) saying stupid stuff like "Oh we'll put 10% ethanol made from cane sugar into petrol." Jesus. They don't understand the problem, so it's hardly surprising they can't solve it.
He still looks overpaid, considering his apparent intellect. That's not far short of what I make as an IT professional. (Admittedly it's probably cheaper to live in Australia than the US.)
You're quoting Einstein _way_ out of context, and probably distorting his intended meaning. He wasn't either a theist or a deist, more like an atheistic-pantheist (sort of), ie, the universe itself is god.
To quote Cunt Eastwood from some movie whose name eludes me: "Opinions are like arseholes - everybody has one".
Choosing Galileo in this instance is not useful. Galileo held a minority opinion which has turned out to be more or less correct. Otoh, evolution deniers are dumb cunts (I'm actually not a misogenist despite the language) who are wrong. Fuck 'em. They deserve the total lack of respect they get.
Religion deserves to be insulted by those who have the wit to look behind the curtain.
As others have stated, evolution is a fact (think flu viruses), whereas the Theory of Evolution is a theory (which is as better supported by the facts than many other scientific theories which are widely accepted by the loonies^Wcreationists).
> The Big Bang happened, yes. But what was before that? Where did the particles come from? Nobody knows.
If I understood Hawking ("A Brief History of Time"), before the Big Bang there was... nothing. No time, no space, no matter. In fact, the question has no meaning.
> I personally don't think that the Biblical version and the Scientific version will end up very far apart after all.
Hmm... they already are far apart, and can only get further apart. The scientific version of creation (for want of a better word) relies on the notion that a very simple self-replicating molecule or structure can mutate (ie, randomly change), and if this mutated copy is fitter for survival and replication than its "parent" it will supplant other, unchanged, copies. Thus, something very simple (eg, a biggish organic molecule) can evolve over billions of years into something quite complex (eg a human being). If you insert an extra assumption that a pre-existing, fully-formed, extremely complex, being (eg a god) created that first, simple, self-replicating molecule, you're left with the rather large problem of explaining where that creator came from. If you posit that it was always there, you may as well assume that, instead, the universe was always there (in some form or other) or that the first self-replicating molecule just happened by itself (not so improbable over the 4 billion or so years the Earth has been here). Otherwise you're left with an infinite regression (it's gods all the way down).
I recommend you read something written by an evolutionary biologist. I'd suggest Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", followed by "The God Delusion". Or you could start with a philosopher as I did 40-odd years ago, with Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian".
First time I've looked at Yahoo! for some years... god, it's ugly. And close to useless. I remembered all over again why I use Google if I need to find something.
Although I don't hunt, I have no objection to anyone hunting for food. Having spent 26 years in the army, I have an ingrained, almost instinctive, appreciation for safety in weapon-handling. Giving blind people guns is not safe, and I doubt the sanity and intelligence of anyone who thinks it's a good idea.
Anderson is not just a pompous idiot, he's dangerous near children (because at least adults have some possibility of having been inocculated against his particular form of idiocy).
I read the article. It seems to be about an extremely naive restatement of a small part of Cantor's work on transfinite numbers. This man should not be permitted to mislead small children about mathematics, as he's potentially ruining their little minds.
I'm not sure which part of my previous comment you thought was infantile (RTFA is, after all, a common meme here), but it was all relevant. In fact, I think you need a bit more mathematics before you comment on the relevance (or otherwise) of what I said.
If you'd like to attempt to refute what I've written (as opposed to ad hominem attacks on, I'd guess, my choice of language), I'd be really interested to see what you have to offer.
If the fucking article was even remotely accurate, he's a fool. I'm sure he's a very nice man, he just shouldn't be allowed near children and whiteboards.
Slashdot Mirror
Frank Zappa reckoned it's also because many of them are barely competent drones (he had a bad experience with the LSO). A bit harsh, but probably fair.
> Do correct me if I'm wrong.
There's a few in Australia too. Of course, thery're the same right-wing fucktards who still think invading Vietraq was absolutely brilliant, so that gives you an idea of their ability to examine evidence.
I just get so pissed off with our dickhead government (in Australia) saying stupid stuff like "Oh we'll put 10% ethanol made from cane sugar into petrol." Jesus. They don't understand the problem, so it's hardly surprising they can't solve it.
The process requires dirty water, so it's just a matter of using the algae as part of your sewerage treatment.
I think a lot of the original research was done here - http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/
He still looks overpaid, considering his apparent intellect. That's not far short of what I make as an IT professional. (Admittedly it's probably cheaper to live in Australia than the US.)
I guess that's why the chimps and gorillas being hunted for bush meat are suffering from a population explosion ....
The reason most evolutionists refuse to entertain the conceit that creationism is valid is because it isn't. It's nonsense.
You're quoting Einstein _way_ out of context, and probably distorting his intended meaning. He wasn't either a theist or a deist, more like an atheistic-pantheist (sort of), ie, the universe itself is god.
> ... gets a religion that isn't so easily proven false.
... he'll be looking for a loooooong time.
Hmmm
To quote Cunt Eastwood from some movie whose name eludes me: "Opinions are like arseholes - everybody has one".
Choosing Galileo in this instance is not useful. Galileo held a minority opinion which has turned out to be more or less correct. Otoh, evolution deniers are dumb cunts (I'm actually not a misogenist despite the language) who are wrong. Fuck 'em. They deserve the total lack of respect they get.
Religion deserves to be insulted by those who have the wit to look behind the curtain.
As others have stated, evolution is a fact (think flu viruses), whereas the Theory of Evolution is a theory (which is as better supported by the facts than many other scientific theories which are widely accepted by the loonies^Wcreationists).
> Darwinism and evolution isn't there to compete with religion or prove creationists wrong
No, it's a beneficial side-effect rather than the primary goal.
Be fair. They haven't taken 4 billion years ... yet.
> The Big Bang happened, yes. But what was before that? Where did the particles come from? Nobody knows.
... nothing. No time, no space, no matter. In fact, the question has no meaning.
... they already are far apart, and can only get further apart. The scientific version of creation (for want of a better word) relies on the notion that a very simple self-replicating molecule or structure can mutate (ie, randomly change), and if this mutated copy is fitter for survival and replication than its "parent" it will supplant other, unchanged, copies. Thus, something very simple (eg, a biggish organic molecule) can evolve over billions of years into something quite complex (eg a human being). If you insert an extra assumption that a pre-existing, fully-formed, extremely complex, being (eg a god) created that first, simple, self-replicating molecule, you're left with the rather large problem of explaining where that creator came from. If you posit that it was always there, you may as well assume that, instead, the universe was always there (in some form or other) or that the first self-replicating molecule just happened by itself (not so improbable over the 4 billion or so years the Earth has been here). Otherwise you're left with an infinite regression (it's gods all the way down).
If I understood Hawking ("A Brief History of Time"), before the Big Bang there was
> I personally don't think that the Biblical version and the Scientific version will end up very far apart after all.
Hmm
I recommend you read something written by an evolutionary biologist. I'd suggest Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", followed by "The God Delusion". Or you could start with a philosopher as I did 40-odd years ago, with Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian".
Zorch stroking, iirc.
First time I've looked at Yahoo! for some years ... god, it's ugly. And close to useless. I remembered all over again why I use Google if I need to find something.
Although I don't hunt, I have no objection to anyone hunting for food. Having spent 26 years in the army, I have an ingrained, almost instinctive, appreciation for safety in weapon-handling. Giving blind people guns is not safe, and I doubt the sanity and intelligence of anyone who thinks it's a good idea.
The thing I think is funny is that anyone could ask 'Can blind people safely hunt?' with a straight face, because the answer is clearly 'no'.
Wouldn't happen to be mTMS, would it? Christ, it's ugly.
What real problem is that?
NaN? Done.
Transfinite mathematics? Done.
Anderson is not just a pompous idiot, he's dangerous near children (because at least adults have some possibility of having been inocculated against his particular form of idiocy).
I read the article. It seems to be about an extremely naive restatement of a small part of Cantor's work on transfinite numbers. This man should not be permitted to mislead small children about mathematics, as he's potentially ruining their little minds.
I'm not sure which part of my previous comment you thought was infantile (RTFA is, after all, a common meme here), but it was all relevant. In fact, I think you need a bit more mathematics before you comment on the relevance (or otherwise) of what I said.
If you'd like to attempt to refute what I've written (as opposed to ad hominem attacks on, I'd guess, my choice of language), I'd be really interested to see what you have to offer.
Read Chris Date (or Fabian Pascal). Maybe then you'll understand why NULL is at least as bad as GOTO.
It just seems like a new word for transfinite mathematics. Cantor did this more than a century ago.
If the fucking article was even remotely accurate, he's a fool. I'm sure he's a very nice man, he just shouldn't be allowed near children and whiteboards.