No you can't. You'd have to start at the Big Bang, so added to a machine that's slower than real speed you'd have a time delay of 14 billion years, wich will increase each day. At the heat death of the universe you may have arrived at the forming of the sun. And that's assuming you know the initial situation at the big bang with absolute precision. This is chaos theory to the max. A string a couple of Ångström off and the solar system may never have formed.
Classical A=B so B=A logical fallacy. For example: "All psychology is biology" is true, "All biology is psychology" is untrue. This counts for each of your steps. The last step is a summary of these (untrue) steps and therefore untrue.
Now for the car analogy: Carbon is used in making steel. Steel is used in making plates. Plates are made into car body parts. Car body parts are made into cars. All carbon is made into cars.
They don't charge me that much at all. I just buy more books, I usually have 10 books (and a couple of BluRays) so I can divide the shipping cost over all of them. I'd expect that to be bloody obvious...
You can only seem to repeat it if you don't measure it with high enough thermal and spacial resolution. If you measure the temperature of each cubic mm of water with a resolution of +/- 0.00000000001 K you'd see it is quite random. The vortexes at that size are hard to predict and quite unrepeatable. However it is not possible to measure that precisely.
I love that in a scientist: he basically said "It doesn't fit my frame of reference, so my gut tells me it couldn't be right." But he published it anyways because the theory was sound. A bit like the FTL neutrino's: "It must be wrong but we can't find the fault. Can anyone repeat our measurements". Not hiding it because the data doesn't fit what they expected, but checking it (1500 times if I am correct) and publishing it if the results remain the same. With the caveat "It must be incorrect, but we can't find the fault". That is how science can advance with mega steps sometimes, by thinking "That can't be right, what the hell is happening here?" and being open about it (after checking it oft enough to prevent flooding the scientific community with flawed information).
Office Communicator doesn't require an external account. I believe it just needs some room on the Exchange server (I'm not an expert). But it does require you to use Windows and an Exchange server, to wich many/.ers will object.
It's a theory, just not a scientific theory. It can not be proven or disproven through science so science has nothing to do with it. It's a theory none the less. The theory that there is no god is a theory as well and has as much to do with science as the theory that there is a god.
If the problem was with discussion between the students and the teacher about whether Allah guided the evolution or it was pure chance the teacher should be disciplined. Evolution only discribes what the result of the random events was, not whether these random events were controlled by a god or not. This question does not fit in biology, it's theology. If the student comes to the teacher with the question whether it's possible Allah controlled the randomness and the teacher says this isn't possible both are mixing religion and science, for the teacher has no proof Allah didn't do it. He should have responded "That's not the realm of science since it can't be proven one way or the other". The student's reaction (boycotting class) is overdrawn. Disclaimers: this post is based on a lot of assumptions. I do not believe in a god, neither do I believe in no god. I simply assume there isn't one but others may have different assumptions.
Yes you can applie it to everything. And that's not really wrong. It could be so. It's just a different religion if you are certain it's not so (of wich you seem to be certain). Neither of these assumptions ("God has an active hand in it" or "God doesn't have an active hand in it") can be proven so both are based in faith. Both are some form of religion. I assume he doesn't have an active hand in it, but I am not certain. I can't be because there is no proof. I do not believe science has anything to do with it, for there is proof for neither assumption and no way to gather said proof.
Atheism as in "There is no proof for a god so He can not exist" is a religion. People who claim that assume something is true without proof. The assumption is "there is no god". I know the proof "there can be no omnipotent, omnibenivolent and all knowing god because they are mutually exclusive with evil in the world" but that does not prove there can be no god, just no god with those three traits. Disclaimer: I assume there is no god because I haven't seen proof for one. I haven't seen proof there is no god either, but Occam's razor applies here. Occam's razor gives only basis for an assumption and if new proof appears it should be applied anew.
No I couldn't have narrated that. This is an anecdote that, assuming it's not a lie (wich I assume), proves not all muslims refuse to listen to alternative theories to their own. This is valuable information, although I already had that feeling when talking to some of them. It is interresting, relevant and new (in the comments to this story). You may find a fail in his believing some of it is not random chance but Allah's will (assuming GGP is correct) but I find it not: while I do not subscribe to this theory I cannot disprove it and this I cannot conclude it's not true. To conclude it can not be because it can not be proven is a sort of religion in and of itself, because you then decide something is without proof. I'll defend your right to this religion although I do not ascribe to it, but I will call you out on your flaws if I see them.
But the theory that prescribing antibiotics can push the bacteria to evolve a way to deal with the antibiotics is "survival of the fittest". There is proof that this actually happens. If we have doctors prescribing antibiotics for each cut and bruise because they don't believe it works against us in the long term we are just fucking ourselves (in a bad way).
Slashdot Mirror
Then I seem to have misunderstood. I guessed the last line was meant as a summary of the rest. It is kind of interresting the way I now understand it.
I really like his imagination better.
Sadly I'd guess it will not come to be. Trees migrate quite slow and planting them costs to much money.
ad inifinitum.
Nope, once the ice is melted this cycle cannot continue.
Not that means it's not a problem.
You shouldn't use Germany for that. Use Europe and compare Germany to a state. There is a hell of a lot of international transport here.
They'll probably have mustaches, are muching on mushrooms and are looking for a princess in a pink dress.
No you can't. You'd have to start at the Big Bang, so added to a machine that's slower than real speed you'd have a time delay of 14 billion years, wich will increase each day. At the heat death of the universe you may have arrived at the forming of the sun.
And that's assuming you know the initial situation at the big bang with absolute precision. This is chaos theory to the max. A string a couple of Ångström off and the solar system may never have formed.
Classical A=B so B=A logical fallacy. For example: "All psychology is biology" is true, "All biology is psychology" is untrue. This counts for each of your steps. The last step is a summary of these (untrue) steps and therefore untrue.
Now for the car analogy:
Carbon is used in making steel.
Steel is used in making plates.
Plates are made into car body parts.
Car body parts are made into cars.
All carbon is made into cars.
They don't charge me that much at all. I just buy more books, I usually have 10 books (and a couple of BluRays) so I can divide the shipping cost over all of them. I'd expect that to be bloody obvious...
But hackable: one cold set her up with a *nix box. That'll get the Windows support calls down to 0.
You can only seem to repeat it if you don't measure it with high enough thermal and spacial resolution. If you measure the temperature of each cubic mm of water with a resolution of +/- 0.00000000001 K you'd see it is quite random. The vortexes at that size are hard to predict and quite unrepeatable. However it is not possible to measure that precisely.
The parent comment explaned the GP comment, as a joke because the GP comment explained the XKCD in the GGP comment.
I love that in a scientist: he basically said "It doesn't fit my frame of reference, so my gut tells me it couldn't be right." But he published it anyways because the theory was sound.
A bit like the FTL neutrino's: "It must be wrong but we can't find the fault. Can anyone repeat our measurements".
Not hiding it because the data doesn't fit what they expected, but checking it (1500 times if I am correct) and publishing it if the results remain the same. With the caveat "It must be incorrect, but we can't find the fault". That is how science can advance with mega steps sometimes, by thinking "That can't be right, what the hell is happening here?" and being open about it (after checking it oft enough to prevent flooding the scientific community with flawed information).
Office Communicator doesn't require an external account. I believe it just needs some room on the Exchange server (I'm not an expert). But it does require you to use Windows and an Exchange server, to wich many /.ers will object.
Youre a dupe. God would have had UID 0.
Iron Man is a civilian.
We're not getting off this planet. We'll kill each other first.
We'll kill ourselves first
We're just curious.
Us Dutch are a trading folk. Do you know what this would fetch on the open market?
All jokes aside: all that I know about virusses says this is a bad thing to try.
Rule 1: Cardio.
The fatties are the first to go, for obvious reasons.
(no quote from the page but semiquote from the movie)
It's a theory, just not a scientific theory. It can not be proven or disproven through science so science has nothing to do with it. It's a theory none the less. The theory that there is no god is a theory as well and has as much to do with science as the theory that there is a god.
If the problem was with discussion between the students and the teacher about whether Allah guided the evolution or it was pure chance the teacher should be disciplined. Evolution only discribes what the result of the random events was, not whether these random events were controlled by a god or not. This question does not fit in biology, it's theology.
If the student comes to the teacher with the question whether it's possible Allah controlled the randomness and the teacher says this isn't possible both are mixing religion and science, for the teacher has no proof Allah didn't do it. He should have responded "That's not the realm of science since it can't be proven one way or the other". The student's reaction (boycotting class) is overdrawn.
Disclaimers: this post is based on a lot of assumptions.
I do not believe in a god, neither do I believe in no god. I simply assume there isn't one but others may have different assumptions.
Yes you can applie it to everything. And that's not really wrong. It could be so. It's just a different religion if you are certain it's not so (of wich you seem to be certain). Neither of these assumptions ("God has an active hand in it" or "God doesn't have an active hand in it") can be proven so both are based in faith. Both are some form of religion.
I assume he doesn't have an active hand in it, but I am not certain. I can't be because there is no proof. I do not believe science has anything to do with it, for there is proof for neither assumption and no way to gather said proof.
Atheism as in "There is no proof for a god so He can not exist" is a religion. People who claim that assume something is true without proof. The assumption is "there is no god". I know the proof "there can be no omnipotent, omnibenivolent and all knowing god because they are mutually exclusive with evil in the world" but that does not prove there can be no god, just no god with those three traits.
Disclaimer: I assume there is no god because I haven't seen proof for one. I haven't seen proof there is no god either, but Occam's razor applies here. Occam's razor gives only basis for an assumption and if new proof appears it should be applied anew.
No I couldn't have narrated that. This is an anecdote that, assuming it's not a lie (wich I assume), proves not all muslims refuse to listen to alternative theories to their own. This is valuable information, although I already had that feeling when talking to some of them.
It is interresting, relevant and new (in the comments to this story).
You may find a fail in his believing some of it is not random chance but Allah's will (assuming GGP is correct) but I find it not: while I do not subscribe to this theory I cannot disprove it and this I cannot conclude it's not true. To conclude it can not be because it can not be proven is a sort of religion in and of itself, because you then decide something is without proof. I'll defend your right to this religion although I do not ascribe to it, but I will call you out on your flaws if I see them.
This made me think of this XKCD.
But the theory that prescribing antibiotics can push the bacteria to evolve a way to deal with the antibiotics is "survival of the fittest". There is proof that this actually happens. If we have doctors prescribing antibiotics for each cut and bruise because they don't believe it works against us in the long term we are just fucking ourselves (in a bad way).