Evolution isn't as predictive as scientists make it out to be. Certain parts of "evolution" is filled with unexplainable events. Slow, steady change cannot explain certain periods of time of rapid change, nor the very long periods where little if any change occurred. Both of these problems are ignored or worse, and doesn't apply Occam's razor, but rather add complexity to the theory.
If it was wrong, then withdraw the paper because it is wrong. Why mention creationism at all. Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.
Which makes it a dogmatic problem, not a factual one. He's just lucky to have found it before he died, to correct the wrong conclusions of his scientific paper which doesn't line up with current scientific dogma.
"As soon as you come up with a belief-based system that has predictive ability that's better than the scientific method I'll accept it."
I don't have a problem with the scientific method. However Evolution isn't PART of the scientific method, because it hasn't predicted ANYTHING. Of course, it has an escape clause of time(can't test it). Can you tell me what is the difference between creationism and evolution? Both have an escape clause of time, don't they?
When scientists can create life from inert matter, I'll agree that evolution conforms to the scientific method (Thesis, Antithesis, Hypothesis, Synthesis, Replication etc). Until then, don't call it scientific fact, nor treat it as such.
It may indeed be the best theory you have, but it is still a theory.
No, it means he made ASSUMPTIVE errors. And the conclusion he reached wasn't according to Scientific Doctrine. So he changed his assumptions, the proper conclusion was reached and all is well in the Scientific Community, since doctrine is more important than anything else.
Either it is correct, or it proves scientific understanding is fallible. Creationism shouldn't play into the discussion. Actually bringing Creationism into the discussion only proves that scientists can be as dogmatic as creationists. None of this bodes well for science.
Please don't skip steps. I want your hypothesis detailing the set of mutations needed to cause something that is inert to become something that is alive. Then I'd like you to test your hypothesis, and publish the results. Until then, it is just theory, not fact. So stop treating like a fact.
'withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons."
But isn't that exactly what has happened?
And, if it isn't "correct", then what else has scientists written that isn't "correct" yet still remains because it DOES support the current dogma (eg Global Warming/Cooling)?
The point I'm making isn't pro-creationist/anti science or pro-science/anti creationist but rather trying to make the case that conclusions of science can be wrong, and yet still be accepted by scientists, who are blinded by current dogma.
What am I arguing for? Nothing, except that one person's torture is not necessarily another person's.
If you think Waterboarding is torture, great. Suppose I don't agree. Does that mean I'm for torture or is it that my definition of torture is different than yours?
The problem here is that it would be easier to simply label me as "pro-torture" because my definition is different. If that is the case, then anyone who thinks incarceration is torture can label anyone that is pro-incarceration as "pro-torture" and let the hyperbole ensue.
"That the existence of more severe torture by one group justifies the weaker torture by another?"
Again, please define torture. Again, who decides what is, or what isn't torture? Part of the issue for me is that calling something "uncomfortable" torture, diminishes real torture, when they are equated. It is the same as "sexual harrassment" of someone saying "Hi babe" vs someone fondling and groping. One is "sexual harassment" the other isn't. If I look funny at a someone is it "sexual harassment" ?
"forced listening to Britney Spears is classified as torture by the UN."
You actually agree with the UN? Sorry to hear that. The UN is useless. They can't stop the genocide in Darfur, and they spend more time picking on Israel and the US than all other countries combined, as it Israel is the sole source of the worlds problems.
I think having to listen to Global Warming garbage is torture. I can't ever seem to get away from it, it is everywhere. I'd rather be waterboarded than have to listen to another rant by Al Gore.
You don't think incarceration can be called.... "suffering" by those that are incarcerated? Shoot, by this definition most High Schoolers are being Tortured (or could be claimed). How about forcing people to listen to country music or Britney Spears?
Who defines what suffering means? The supposed victim or someone else ?
I don't have a problem with the definition, except that it isn't really clear.
And by International Law, most of the Muslim states torture people on a regular basis (real torture), and calling water boarding torture diminishes what is being done elsewhere.
You'd be hard pressed to make that distinction from advertising, since it is all advertised together as a single product. Comcast Cable, Internet and Telephone all from one.
However, if that is the case, I'd like to see if I can offer the same services across Comcast Cable (CC) as Comcast Digital Voice (CDV). If the agreement is fully and mutually exclusive, CDV only available on CC, then I would make the case that they are in fact acting as ONE even if operating under different shell corporations.
of which the other two organizations you mention are wholly owned subsidiaries of these two, as is the other legislative and judicial branch are, along with most of the smaller regional syndicates.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution isn't as predictive as scientists make it out to be. Certain parts of "evolution" is filled with unexplainable events. Slow, steady change cannot explain certain periods of time of rapid change, nor the very long periods where little if any change occurred. Both of these problems are ignored or worse, and doesn't apply Occam's razor, but rather add complexity to the theory.
If it was wrong, then withdraw the paper because it is wrong. Why mention creationism at all. Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.
Which makes it a dogmatic problem, not a factual one. He's just lucky to have found it before he died, to correct the wrong conclusions of his scientific paper which doesn't line up with current scientific dogma.
"As soon as you come up with a belief-based system that has predictive ability that's better than the scientific method I'll accept it."
I don't have a problem with the scientific method. However Evolution isn't PART of the scientific method, because it hasn't predicted ANYTHING. Of course, it has an escape clause of time(can't test it). Can you tell me what is the difference between creationism and evolution? Both have an escape clause of time, don't they?
When scientists can create life from inert matter, I'll agree that evolution conforms to the scientific method (Thesis, Antithesis, Hypothesis, Synthesis, Replication etc). Until then, don't call it scientific fact, nor treat it as such.
It may indeed be the best theory you have, but it is still a theory.
No, it means he made ASSUMPTIVE errors. And the conclusion he reached wasn't according to Scientific Doctrine. So he changed his assumptions, the proper conclusion was reached and all is well in the Scientific Community, since doctrine is more important than anything else.
Bingo.
Either it is correct, or it proves scientific understanding is fallible. Creationism shouldn't play into the discussion. Actually bringing Creationism into the discussion only proves that scientists can be as dogmatic as creationists. None of this bodes well for science.
Please don't skip steps. I want your hypothesis detailing the set of mutations needed to cause something that is inert to become something that is alive. Then I'd like you to test your hypothesis, and publish the results. Until then, it is just theory, not fact. So stop treating like a fact.
'withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons."
But isn't that exactly what has happened?
And, if it isn't "correct", then what else has scientists written that isn't "correct" yet still remains because it DOES support the current dogma (eg Global Warming/Cooling)?
The point I'm making isn't pro-creationist/anti science or pro-science/anti creationist but rather trying to make the case that conclusions of science can be wrong, and yet still be accepted by scientists, who are blinded by current dogma.
Ever try to find a snarky reply to a snarky reply but end up with nothing insightful or snarky to say?
What am I arguing for? Nothing, except that one person's torture is not necessarily another person's.
If you think Waterboarding is torture, great. Suppose I don't agree. Does that mean I'm for torture or is it that my definition of torture is different than yours?
The problem here is that it would be easier to simply label me as "pro-torture" because my definition is different. If that is the case, then anyone who thinks incarceration is torture can label anyone that is pro-incarceration as "pro-torture" and let the hyperbole ensue.
"That the existence of more severe torture by one group justifies the weaker torture by another?"
Again, please define torture. Again, who decides what is, or what isn't torture? Part of the issue for me is that calling something "uncomfortable" torture, diminishes real torture, when they are equated. It is the same as "sexual harrassment" of someone saying "Hi babe" vs someone fondling and groping. One is "sexual harassment" the other isn't. If I look funny at a someone is it "sexual harassment" ?
"forced listening to Britney Spears is classified as torture by the UN."
You actually agree with the UN? Sorry to hear that. The UN is useless. They can't stop the genocide in Darfur, and they spend more time picking on Israel and the US than all other countries combined, as it Israel is the sole source of the worlds problems.
I think having to listen to Global Warming garbage is torture. I can't ever seem to get away from it, it is everywhere. I'd rather be waterboarded than have to listen to another rant by Al Gore.
You don't think incarceration can be called .... "suffering" by those that are incarcerated? Shoot, by this definition most High Schoolers are being Tortured (or could be claimed). How about forcing people to listen to country music or Britney Spears?
Who defines what suffering means? The supposed victim or someone else ?
I don't have a problem with the definition, except that it isn't really clear.
And by International Law, most of the Muslim states torture people on a regular basis (real torture), and calling water boarding torture diminishes what is being done elsewhere.
"And of course, actually getting it up into orbit might take a little more work. "
Actually, it is probably a crime in most jurisdictions.
Waterboarding causes no physical harm, no pain. Yet is considered torture. Same can be said of incarceration. So again, please define torture.
If you can't or are unwilling to define torture, then you can't decide what is, or what isn't torture.
Please define torture.
I say locking people up is torture (Prison), does your country support incarceration? Do you support incarceration? You SUPPORT TORTURE!
See how easy it is to call something torture? See how easy it is to sensationalize something?
"course the free stuff that she gets just for showing up at awards ceremonies in bras and panties."
....
There, fixed it for you
You'd be hard pressed to make that distinction from advertising, since it is all advertised together as a single product. Comcast Cable, Internet and Telephone all from one.
However, if that is the case, I'd like to see if I can offer the same services across Comcast Cable (CC) as Comcast Digital Voice (CDV). If the agreement is fully and mutually exclusive, CDV only available on CC, then I would make the case that they are in fact acting as ONE even if operating under different shell corporations.
Here is a better solution (tweak it all you want) .....
....
Add a more formal disconnect protocol to the session.
H)Please Disconnect 1234
C)I heard a Please Disconnect, is this correct ABCD
H)Yes, I said Disconnect 5CD8 (hash-answer)
C)Thank You I'm hanging up now 90FA (hash-reply)
--
Any other answer than one that properly handles the challenge / response drop is ignored.
So would be sending email, which uses SMTP. So would a whole host of other applications.
The problems are Servers as a service (Thunderbird) or servers as a Service (Gmail).
But Comcast IS a "Telecommunications Service" now that they are offering "Comcast Digital Voice".
The question is, does that change their status any, with regard to Common Carrier.
That works until there is nobody that doesn't "mess with us".
Demands a simple answer ....
"Will this prove any more successful than the two previous iterations of this offering?"
No.
At this point we need one of those forms that has all the check boxes as to why it will fail, like the one for SPAM.
Feist is Eye Candy in that nifty video used by Apple and the iPod ..... oh wait, never mind ...
....
A link for those that don't get the joke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Feist
To be properly recursive it should be ....
RIAA Indictment Aggregation Association.
You guys have both missed the real criminals ....
http://www.gop.org/
http://www.democrats.org/
of which the other two organizations you mention are wholly owned subsidiaries of these two, as is the other legislative and judicial branch are, along with most of the smaller regional syndicates.
"A good elected official"
Nuff said
I can see it now .... The new slashdot Meme .... "First YARRRRRRRRRR!"