I'm definitely not convinced spirituality and emotions are anything other than complex chemical and electrical reactions in the body. Intellect is probably controlled in large part by genetics and how our brains are formed (along with our environment). Morality is learned behavior.
And while those three or four things together are probably not all present in animals to the same degree, I do not feel the need to attribute them to a god, when natural processes could explain them just fine.
If the definition of soul is "that which separates man from beast," then I can live with the above definition. But if the definition is "that thing that god gave us," then I obviously cannot.
You mean a painless experience using the computer?
GUI users can also click off the checkbox next to "JavaScript in mail/newsgroups," and WALA, no more problems.
It's amazing how someone who obviously feels incredibly smart is pinning his hopes on the PAST. In case you hadn't noticed, text-based UI's are not exactly the stuff of futuristic books and movies -- FOR A REASON.
Sometimes, after reading your.plan files, I wonder what you could do if you applied your intelligence, programming skills, and sheer effort towards something else revolutionary... You've often said that you like working on your games because they give you a chance to work on many different areas (networking, 3D graphics, compression, etc).
My question is, if you ever gave up games, or if you were to do something else entirely, what would it be? Although I love your games, I'd give them up in an instant without complaint if I knew you were going to work on something revolutionary outside the gaming arena.
"The sun provides light. If our sun disappears that does not mean that light no longer exists. You could still light a match."
So you propose God lit the world up with a huge match? Then what the hell did he need to create the Sun for? A match would give off both light and heat, just like the sun!
My point is, why would god go to the trouble of creating light, and THEN creating the sun? Did he like to waste his time and energy? Or was he just not a good planner? Seems to me, making the sun first would eliminate the need to generate any of his own light...
Then again, when has He ever been rational.
"No, in the language that he was inventing at the time."
Actually, my last part there was supposed to be a joke. I find it pretty unbelievable that someone believes Adam named all the animals.
Just for starters, what animals were around back then? How did Adam come up with unique names for all the animals that were around (presumably thousands or millions)? How did the animals that came after Adam get named? And what about insects? There are millions of species of insects... did Adam name them all as well?
And speaking of animals, does the bible mention Dinosaurs at all? If not, why not? If it was inspired (or written) by god, surely he knew about the dinosaurs. Why not include them for good measure?
In fact, why doesn't the bible contain ANYTHING that the people who transcribed it thousands of years ago might not understand?
In one of his books, Carl Sagan wondered why the creator didn't pass along a bit of wisdom that was beyond the knowledge of the times. For example, he could have said, "Life is two strands, entwined."
Obviously the people of the time wouldn't have been able to understand, but we today would know he's talking about DNA.
Surely, with His infinite wisdom, He would have known something like that would provide for a little proof later on...
Uhhh, that would be because MY original post was asking the question, "How would you teach creationism."
You answered it by saying you would just state there is this other "theory" called creationism, but no facts provided. I don't consider that teaching at all.
"What is the difference between man and beast? Man has a soul."
That's strange, I thought it was just that we had an opposing thumb.
Please define what a "soul" is.
"The second G*D gave humans a soul was when humanity was created."
Please let me in on your definition of "humanity."
"And although science might seem in opposition to G*D at times in the end it corrects us and only brings us closer to and understanding of his glorius world."
Interesting. Does god own all the planets in the universe, or just earth?
I asked how you would teach creationism, not how you might bash evolution. And before you go into the "flaws" of evolution, be sure you cover all the huge mounds of facts and evidence in favor. It's always nice to present the full story.
OK, I guess we're talking about christianity then?
Before I get to the point of my post, I'd like to point out the following paradox: As I understand it, God created light, and then he created the Sun....... Discuss.
Now then... the part about what order the animals was created in is not quite right. First there was Adam, and then Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, right? And then God created all the animals, which Adam then named... presumably in Latin?
Let's not even get into how God created the heavens and the earth on the same day... Unless you can explain the quasars that are billions of years older than earth...
Just curious... how do you determine which language is symbolic, and which is "FOR REAL"?
You seem to claim "dragons" and "bowls in the sky" are outrageous. I'm just interested to hear why someone being killed and resurrecting them- selves is somehow more plausible.
"Most devout atheists are good at ignoring facts and turning away from anything that poses a challenge to their fractured way of learning."
Please, enlighten me with some facts. Creationists are great at trying to tear evolution FACTS apart, while offering none of their own. All you've done is try and dispute some small pieces of evolution. Why not offer some proof for Creation? Perhaps because you have none?
"I neither condone nor advocate such hog-wash."
Well then what DO you condone?
"Carbon dating is as much a method of interpretation as it is a tool."
So you are familiar with the science of carbon-dating? How much carbon-dating have you ever done, personally? Lot's, I'm sure.
"Why is it that no method of carbon dating has been established that reproduces the same results within 1500 years?"
Let's pretend for a minute that you're right about the "1500 years" comment. 1500 years is a DROP IN THE BUCKET. Barely a blip on the calendar of our planet's life (roughly 4.5 billion years). A 1500 years versus 4.5 billion is the same as comparing 0.00000003 to 1. In other words, insignificant.
You're trying to paint 1500 years as a long time, because our calendar is only 2000 years old. But when you compare it to our planet's age, it tends to pale in comparison, doesn't it? In fact, 1500 years would be like me guessing your age to within a few picoseconds.
So please, try again.
"to the point where dating an actual object just 3,000 years old (catacombs in egyptian salt mines) shows that human remains are nearly 50,000 years old?"
Please, where exactly are you getting your info? I forgot, Creationists don't need to cite refs, just point to the holy book.
"You MUST put forth creationism if you are going to teach evolution."
Why MUST we? Because you believe it's true?
Back in Galileo's time, would you have been pleading for "earth-centered universe" teachings as well?
In biology classes, should the teachers explain that "when humans die, their bodies decompose and they become food for worms. Also, some people believe ghosts or spirits rise out of their bodies and go to heaven."
Is that what you're after?
I would prefer my children read fairy tales in their spare time, not at school. One shred of concrete proof would be nice to show in your favor.
For example, I would LOVE to hear an example of a presentation you would give to students on creationism.
I can imagine how it would start out:
::Lights are dimmed.::
(Booming voice) "In the beginning, there was darkness..."
There are a couple solutions. One of which is to use a system with two CPU's. On NT, you could have a CPU intensive application going, and still be able to use the system as normal since the GUI would process on the second processor (assuming the intensive app isn't pegging out both procs).
I don't mind giving up my certain privacies for for certain conveniences. If you do, then don't support the products that "take away" your privacy. But don't pretend that you speak for everyone, or even "the/. crowd."
-WW
-- Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.
"It seems to me that religion is just a way to explain things that science could not."
That may have been true 2000 years ago, but often times religion is still referred to even when science can explain something. Especially with the fundamentalists.
"Both are talking about the same things just from different perspectives."
Right. In one hand you have people backing up their claims with facts, and in the other, you have people backing up their claims with more claims, beliefs, magic, hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo.
I personally do not believe humans are capable of understanding how the universe was created, just as termites can't understand who built the house they are eating and living in. It is beyond our comprehension.
But should we give up trying? Hell no.
-WW
-- Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.
"This is the customer of the future. A man so driven to actually understand instead of just install his own software."
I think you're a little confused. "A man so driven to actually understand instead of just install his own software" is Linux's PRESENT customer base.
Someone that just wants to install Linux and have it work right the first time is your customer of the future. The goal you are trying to reach with Linux.
If anything, Jon's article is just another reminder that Linux is not ready for the average end-user (you know, those people that make up 95% of the computer-buying world).
I'm not arguing one way or the other for this specific case (Wooly Mammoth). I'm speaking about genetic engineering as a whole. I say go for it.
Then again, I look at the BIG BIG picture. The earth and its inhabitants from the perspective of the infinitely (?) large universe. Whereas some people are concerned about "the human race," I am not, really. I can't explain what I mean too well, except to say, Have you ever listened to George Carlin's bit on The Earth, and plastic?
-WW
-- Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.
"...but actually creating life that is somehow sacred."
Unless you define your god as "a fertile female," then I don't know how you can seriously claim your god creates life. Or have you recently found even a single shred of proof to back your claims up about the origin of life?
I'm not trying to start a religious flame war again, but in one corner we have some facts, and in the other corner we've got some books written by religious (not scientific) people thousands of years ago and transcribed/translated a million times throughout the years.
You're entitled to your opinions, and you're entitled not to mess with genetics if you don't want to, but why would you think it's OK to impose your beliefs against geneticism in order to prevent SOMEONE ELSE from working on it? Are you afraid your god will punish you for what someone else is doing?
While you may consider genetics "playing god," I merely consider it another scientific step towards understanding the origin of life and how the universe works.
"The problem with tinkering with life is that we don't really understand it."
Duh! That's the whole point of these experiments with genetics... to learn more. Humans are constantly striving to learn more, even about taboo subjects. I remember a few years ago, some guy named Galileo was persecuted for his scientific beliefs and discoveries, because they were taboo. Today, most of us laugh at the fools in the Church that condemned him for claiming the Earth was not the center of the universe. I'd say your frame of reference is a bit too biased if you can't see the parallel here.
That's the problem with the world today... the people trying to impose "morality" usually have limited perspectives.
Personally, I'd rather learn as much as I can while I've still got another 50 good years left on this Pale Blue Dot.
You may enjoy standing scared in the dark, but I'd prefer we light the candle of science whenever possible.
-WW
(Cool, two Sagan references in one post.)
-- Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I'm going to trust my e-wallet to the same
jackasses that release a new security breach every
other day!
No thanks, I'll keep my e-wallet in my e-pocket
where it belongs.
-WW
I'm definitely not convinced spirituality and
emotions are anything other than complex chemical
and electrical reactions in the body. Intellect
is probably controlled in large part by genetics
and how our brains are formed (along with our
environment). Morality is learned behavior.
And while those three or four things together are
probably not all present in animals to the same
degree, I do not feel the need to attribute them
to a god, when natural processes could explain
them just fine.
If the definition of soul is "that which separates
man from beast," then I can live with the above
definition. But if the definition is "that thing
that god gave us," then I obviously cannot.
-WW
You mean a painless experience using the computer?
GUI users can also click off the checkbox next to
"JavaScript in mail/newsgroups," and WALA, no more
problems.
It's amazing how someone who obviously feels
incredibly smart is pinning his hopes on the PAST.
In case you hadn't noticed, text-based UI's are
not exactly the stuff of futuristic books and
movies -- FOR A REASON.
-WW
Hi John,
.plan files, I
Sometimes, after reading your
wonder what you could do if you applied your
intelligence, programming skills, and sheer effort
towards something else revolutionary... You've
often said that you like working on your games
because they give you a chance to work on many
different areas (networking, 3D graphics,
compression, etc).
My question is, if you ever gave up games, or if
you were to do something else entirely, what would
it be? Although I love your games, I'd give them
up in an instant without complaint if I knew you
were going to work on something revolutionary
outside the gaming arena.
-WW
"The sun provides light. If our sun disappears
that does not mean that light no longer exists.
You could still light a match."
So you propose God lit the world up with a huge
match? Then what the hell did he need to create
the Sun for? A match would give off both light
and heat, just like the sun!
My point is, why would god go to the trouble of
creating light, and THEN creating the sun? Did he
like to waste his time and energy? Or was he just
not a good planner? Seems to me, making the sun
first would eliminate the need to generate any of
his own light...
Then again, when has He ever been rational.
"No, in the language that he was inventing at the time."
Actually, my last part there was supposed to be
a joke. I find it pretty unbelievable that someone
believes Adam named all the animals.
Just for starters, what animals were around back
then? How did Adam come up with unique names for
all the animals that were around (presumably
thousands or millions)? How did the animals that
came after Adam get named? And what about insects?
There are millions of species of insects... did
Adam name them all as well?
And speaking of animals, does the bible mention
Dinosaurs at all? If not, why not? If it was
inspired (or written) by god, surely he knew about
the dinosaurs. Why not include them for good
measure?
In fact, why doesn't the bible contain ANYTHING
that the people who transcribed it thousands of
years ago might not understand?
In one of his books, Carl Sagan wondered why the
creator didn't pass along a bit of wisdom that was
beyond the knowledge of the times. For example, he
could have said, "Life is two strands, entwined."
Obviously the people of the time wouldn't have
been able to understand, but we today would know
he's talking about DNA.
Surely, with His infinite wisdom, He would have
known something like that would provide for a
little proof later on...
-WW
The fact that you're equating a math proof with
a RELIGIOUS FAITH is quite absurd. For obvious
reasons, I hope?
-WW
"Can you prove that it's impossible to trisect an angle?"
No, but you won't find me going around telling
people it's impossible, either!
-WW
Uhhh, that would be because MY original post
was asking the question, "How would you teach
creationism."
You answered it by saying you would just state
there is this other "theory" called creationism,
but no facts provided. I don't consider that
teaching at all.
-WW
"What is the difference between man and beast? Man has a soul."
That's strange, I thought it was just that we
had an opposing thumb.
Please define what a "soul" is.
"The second G*D gave humans a soul was when humanity was created."
Please let me in on your definition of "humanity."
"And although science might seem in opposition to
G*D at times in the end it corrects us and only
brings us closer to and understanding of
his glorius world."
Interesting. Does god own all the planets in the
universe, or just earth?
-WW
"Yes, he was."
Well, don't keep us in suspense!! What were they?!
-WW
I guess /. doesn't like me to use greater-than, less than. That should have said:
How about:
(INSERT FACTS IN FAVOR OF CREATIONISM HERE)
...
"Was that so intolerable?"
Uhh, yeah?
How about:
I asked how you would teach creationism, not
how you might bash evolution. And before you go
into the "flaws" of evolution, be sure you cover
all the huge mounds of facts and evidence in
favor. It's always nice to present the full story.
-WW
OK, I guess we're talking about christianity then?
...... Discuss.
Before I get to the point of my post, I'd like to point out the following paradox: As I
understand it, God created light, and then
he created the Sun.
Now then... the part about what order the animals
was created in is not quite right. First
there was Adam, and then Eve was created from
one of Adam's ribs, right? And then God created
all the animals, which Adam then named...
presumably in Latin?
Let's not even get into how God created the
heavens and the earth on the same day... Unless
you can explain the quasars that are billions of
years older than earth...
The mind boggles.
-WW
So was your friend as adept at providing you
proofs for creationism, as he was at "shredding"
evolution facts?
Or did you just decide to believe in creationism
for the HELL of it?
-WW
Oh gawd yessss, where can I sign up for this!!!
In fact, I thought Tolkien WAS god for at least
a few months after I read the trilogy....
-WW
"The language is highly symbolic."
Just curious... how do you determine which
language is symbolic, and which is "FOR REAL"?
You seem to claim "dragons" and "bowls in the
sky" are outrageous. I'm just interested to hear
why someone being killed and resurrecting them-
selves is somehow more plausible.
Enlighten me, please.
-WW
"Most devout atheists are good at ignoring facts and turning away from anything that poses a challenge to their fractured way of learning."
Please, enlighten me with some facts. Creationists
are great at trying to tear evolution FACTS apart,
while offering none of their own. All you've done
is try and dispute some small pieces of evolution.
Why not offer some proof for Creation? Perhaps
because you have none?
"I neither condone nor advocate such hog-wash."
Well then what DO you condone?
"Carbon dating is as much a method of interpretation as it is a tool."
So you are familiar with the science of
carbon-dating? How much carbon-dating have you
ever done, personally? Lot's, I'm sure.
"Why is it that no method of carbon dating has been established that reproduces the same results within 1500 years?"
Let's pretend for a minute that you're right
about the "1500 years" comment. 1500 years is a
DROP IN THE BUCKET. Barely a blip on the calendar
of our planet's life (roughly 4.5 billion years).
A 1500 years versus 4.5 billion is the same as
comparing 0.00000003 to 1. In other words,
insignificant.
You're trying to paint 1500 years as a long time,
because our calendar is only 2000 years old. But
when you compare it to our planet's age, it tends
to pale in comparison, doesn't it? In fact, 1500
years would be like me guessing your age to within
a few picoseconds.
So please, try again.
"to the point where dating an actual object just
3,000 years old (catacombs in egyptian salt mines)
shows that human remains are nearly 50,000 years
old?"
Please, where exactly are you getting your info?
I forgot, Creationists don't need to cite refs,
just point to the holy book.
"You MUST put forth creationism if you are going to teach evolution."
Why MUST we? Because you believe it's true?
Back in Galileo's time, would you have been
pleading for "earth-centered universe" teachings
as well?
In biology classes, should the teachers explain
that "when humans die, their bodies decompose and
they become food for worms. Also, some people
believe ghosts or spirits rise out of their bodies
and go to heaven."
Is that what you're after?
I would prefer my children read fairy tales in
their spare time, not at school. One shred of
concrete proof would be nice to show in your
favor.
For example, I would LOVE to hear an example of
a presentation you would give to students on
creationism.
I can imagine how it would start out:
::Lights are dimmed.::
(Booming voice) "In the beginning, there was darkness..."
-WW
So what you're saying is that Holst was right?
There are a couple solutions. One of which is to
use a system with two CPU's. On NT, you could have
a CPU intensive application going, and still be
able to use the system as normal since the GUI
would process on the second processor (assuming
the intensive app isn't pegging out both procs).
Another idea is to just use BeOS.....
-WW
I don't mind giving up my certain privacies for /. crowd."
for certain conveniences. If you do, then don't
support the products that "take away" your
privacy. But don't pretend that you speak for
everyone, or even "the
-WW
--
Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.
I just want to point out that you used the word
"shit" directly, and then bleeped out the word
"hell."
You must be Catholic (like my mom)!
-WW
"It seems to me that religion is just a way to explain things that science could not."
That may have been true 2000 years ago, but often
times religion is still referred to even when
science can explain something. Especially with
the fundamentalists.
"Both are talking about the same things just from
different perspectives."
Right. In one hand you have people backing up
their claims with facts, and in the other, you
have people backing up their claims with more
claims, beliefs, magic, hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo.
I personally do not believe humans are capable of
understanding how the universe was created, just
as termites can't understand who built the house
they are eating and living in. It is beyond our
comprehension.
But should we give up trying? Hell no.
-WW
--
Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.
"This is the customer of the future. A man so driven to actually understand instead of just install his own software."
I think you're a little confused. "A man so
driven to actually understand instead of just
install his own software" is Linux's PRESENT
customer base.
Someone that just wants to install Linux and
have it work right the first time is your customer
of the future. The goal you are trying to reach
with Linux.
If anything, Jon's article is just another
reminder that Linux is not ready for the average
end-user (you know, those people that make up
95% of the computer-buying world).
-WW
"But how about when geneticists get cocky..."
You mean, like in the movies?
I believe this is where I'm supposed to guffaw...
I'm not arguing one way or the other for this
specific case (Wooly Mammoth). I'm speaking about
genetic engineering as a whole. I say go for it.
Then again, I look at the BIG BIG picture. The
earth and its inhabitants from the perspective of
the infinitely (?) large universe. Whereas some
people are concerned about "the human race," I am
not, really. I can't explain what I mean too well,
except to say, Have you ever listened to George
Carlin's bit on The Earth, and plastic?
-WW
--
Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.
"...but actually creating life that is somehow sacred."
... to learn more. Humans are
... the
Unless you define your god as "a fertile female,"
then I don't know how you can seriously claim your
god creates life. Or have you recently found even
a single shred of proof to back your claims up
about the origin of life?
I'm not trying to start a religious flame war
again, but in one corner we have some facts, and
in the other corner we've got some books written
by religious (not scientific) people thousands of
years ago and transcribed/translated a million
times throughout the years.
You're entitled to your opinions, and you're
entitled not to mess with genetics if you don't
want to, but why would you think it's OK to
impose your beliefs against geneticism in order
to prevent SOMEONE ELSE from working on it? Are
you afraid your god will punish you for what
someone else is doing?
While you may consider genetics "playing god,"
I merely consider it another scientific step
towards understanding the origin of life and how
the universe works.
"The problem with tinkering with life is that we don't really understand it."
Duh! That's the whole point of these experiments
with genetics
constantly striving to learn more, even about
taboo subjects. I remember a few years ago, some
guy named Galileo was persecuted for his
scientific beliefs and discoveries, because they
were taboo. Today, most of us laugh at the fools
in the Church that condemned him for claiming the
Earth was not the center of the universe. I'd say
your frame of reference is a bit too biased if you
can't see the parallel here.
That's the problem with the world today
people trying to impose "morality" usually have
limited perspectives.
Personally, I'd rather learn as much as I can
while I've still got another 50 good years left
on this Pale Blue Dot.
You may enjoy standing scared in the dark, but
I'd prefer we light the candle of science whenever
possible.
-WW
(Cool, two Sagan references in one post.)
--
Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.