Actually, for a long time I assumed that the CSM was some sort of propaganda like a newspaper version of the 700 Club. I don't remember what changed my mind. I think it was someone responding to me the same way I did to you. They have an interesting history. They do have a regular column promoting Christian Science, but I haven't detected
The only thing I don't like about them is that their stylesheet mixes pixel-height fonts and point-height line-heights, which makes all the lines run together on Mozilla/Linux.:-)
The fact that no one has come back from the future in a time machine proves that we will destroy ourselves before one can be invented! More than likely, it will be with an experiment like this. The only way to ensure the survival of humanity is to immediately end all scientific inquiry.
These reputable enough? They're all on the first page of results when searching for "large hadron collider" "black hole".
You shouldn't judge a newspaper by its name; the Christian Science Monitor is actually one of the best English language papers there is, and in my experience, their science reporting is much better than average.
and similar odd constructs like 3[a], is that the compiler translates it into something like *(a + b) and it doesn't really matter which order the addends are in. Or at least, that's how it was explained to me.
Unfortunately "creationist" is one of those terms that often means 10 different things to 10 different people. But as it's typically used in the US (especially if it's used in a derogatory sense) it means someone who believes in a literal, recent creation event and who does deny that macroevolution has happened. According to polls, up to 50% of Americans may be in this category, although I suspect many of them are people who answer "Yes" to any question they don't really understand.
"Theistic evolutionist" is the common term for the much more reasonable viewpoint that God created the universe through physical processes that we can see and study the effects of today, and that the evidence points to a very old universe and life developing through the process of evolution.
An analogy I've heard and I think is apt is that just as being a conservative does not mean you are a conservationist, believing in God's creation does not necessarily make you a creationist. I do think we need a better term. "Creationist" is definitely interpreted too broadly. "Young-Earth Creationist" is more specific, and it acronymizes nicely.:-)
It's just art. The idea was to capture the then-current anxieties of the country, and while I doubt many people over the age of 7 have laid awake at night worried about hearing a gravely voice say "I find your lack of faith... disturbing", it's a nice addition. It was a child's winning contest entry, after all.
Other non-traditional gargoyles are (I'm plagiarizing from other comments) a construction worker wolf-whistling, in some female-only section, and a guy in a gas mask.
Right, and not to mention Klamath, Willamette, Deschutes, Tualatin, well, they might be obscure to you, but not if you live near Intel's big fabs in Oregon...
I just noticed this. They were good enough to mention that they tested only on pages without DOCTYPE headers, because they think that's a bad idea. Bully for them. But it throws IE 6 and Moz into "quirks mode" where strange and less than wonderful things may happen. For example, IE6/Win has the famous IE box-model size bug in quirks mode but not in standards mode. I don't know whether Opera has a distinction between "standards compliance mode" and "tag-soup mode".
the "methodological flaw" you refer to is that they didn't test everything in the CSS spec, and they tested some things that aren't in the spec (i.e.:hover on non-link elements, which AFAIK is not defined, but is also not prohibited.) That particular combination of tests puts Opera ahead. Others put Mozilla ahead. No doubt some combination does the same for IE or Konqueror. Hell, Netscape 4 is clearly the best. No other browser supports <layer> or <multicol>!
That, I haven't tested. Opera's DOM support is not very good all-around -- applications I've created to work in IE 6 and Moz don't work in Opera, and I can't be bothered to find out why. But Moz's DOM support is pretty slow as well.
Oh, relax. I was trying to be funny. It's actually kind of up in the air which is better, although both are miles ahead of IE. Each has support for things the other browser doesn't. One thing Opera supports that I'd like to see in Gecko is automatic counters.
The reason I use Mozilla instead of Opera, though, other than Opera's strange interface, is Mozilla's far superior DOM support and extensibility.
This is unquestionably true. Look at the total lack of success for Opera, despite the fact that it's a very high-quality browser, much faster than Navigator or Explorer, and with better CSS support. Would you drive a car called "Opera"? It sounds like a weenie hybrid hydrogen powered two-seater commuter hippie mobile, except EVEN MORE GUTLESS! Drivers of Plymouth Neons and Toyota Echoes would snicker at drivers of Operas! And iCab, well, like you said. Good God. Other than the Omni, which of course is used only on the Macintosh [snicker -ed] the rest are Proper American Muscular SUVs.
This is an old-sk00l flamewar, so everybody gets it evenly. But I think you (jgardn) may be the only hard-core creationist to have posted anything significant in this thread non-anonymously. That's worth a lot!
Like the other AC I was conversing with, you would benefit greatly from a little education.
The creationist hypothesis says that the world, including the fossil record, is the way it is because God made it that way. The creationist hypothesis fits the observed facts perfectly, by definition.
That's not a hypothesis. It predicts nothing. It explains nothing. It also ignores that fact that the creationists I'm talking about, far from being theistic evolutionists -- a position I have no quarrel with -- believe Genesis 1 to be literal truth, despite the fact that they have no evidence for it. (They also, for reasons I don't fully understand, despite having been one, believe Genesis 2 to be figurative. Only because it's contradictory...)
It seems to me that you're far more prejudiced against people of faith than the average person of faith would be against you.
That's entirely possible. I don't deny it. It doesn't change the facts.
Evolution has never been posed by ANYONE as a "historical fact."
Well, I just did. But I know what you meant. If you really believe that, it shows that you haven't done the slighted bit of research into what evolution is.
So just to say that we see a progressive increase in complexity doesn't mean one has to come to the conclusion that each generation stemmed from the previous.
This is true, but there is more evidence than that. To me, the most convincing evidence is the fact that all life can be described by a hierarchy that does not change if you use different criteria to build the tree. There is a very good description of this here. There is much more evidence than that, such as the distribution of categories of life in isolated areas of the planet, vestigial structures like hip bones in snakes and whales, and of course the fossil record, but to me, this is the core evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, for a long time I assumed that the CSM was some sort of propaganda like a newspaper version of the 700 Club. I don't remember what changed my mind. I think it was someone responding to me the same way I did to you. They have an interesting history. They do have a regular column promoting Christian Science, but I haven't detected
:-)
The only thing I don't like about them is that their stylesheet mixes pixel-height fonts and point-height line-heights, which makes all the lines run together on Mozilla/Linux.
The fact that no one has come back from the future in a time machine proves that we will destroy ourselves before one can be invented! More than likely, it will be with an experiment like this. The only way to ensure the survival of humanity is to immediately end all scientific inquiry.
While you can easily do this sort of research yourself with an obscure tool known as "Google", I'll help you.
2 .html
http://www.nature.com/nsu/011004/011004-8.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/20020323/bob9.asp
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/558-
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/blackhole-01b.html
These reputable enough? They're all on the first page of results when searching for "large hadron collider" "black hole".
You shouldn't judge a newspaper by its name; the Christian Science Monitor is actually one of the best English language papers there is, and in my experience, their science reporting is much better than average.
Portland is also pretty easy to get around in without a car. :-)
It's no surprise. Douglas Adams wrote Shada. :-)
and similar odd constructs like 3[a], is that the compiler translates it into something like *(a + b) and it doesn't really matter which order the addends are in. Or at least, that's how it was explained to me.
Unfortunately "creationist" is one of those terms that often means 10 different things to 10 different people. But as it's typically used in the US (especially if it's used in a derogatory sense) it means someone who believes in a literal, recent creation event and who does deny that macroevolution has happened. According to polls, up to 50% of Americans may be in this category, although I suspect many of them are people who answer "Yes" to any question they don't really understand.
:-)
"Theistic evolutionist" is the common term for the much more reasonable viewpoint that God created the universe through physical processes that we can see and study the effects of today, and that the evidence points to a very old universe and life developing through the process of evolution.
An analogy I've heard and I think is apt is that just as being a conservative does not mean you are a conservationist, believing in God's creation does not necessarily make you a creationist. I do think we need a better term. "Creationist" is definitely interpreted too broadly. "Young-Earth Creationist" is more specific, and it acronymizes nicely.
F6 toggles between page-focus and url-bar focus
Seriously, I've never seen a more perfectly descriptive title.
But that's not far from the same thing, though, is it? :-)
It's just art. The idea was to capture the then-current anxieties of the country, and while I doubt many people over the age of 7 have laid awake at night worried about hearing a gravely voice say "I find your lack of faith... disturbing", it's a nice addition. It was a child's winning contest entry, after all.
Other non-traditional gargoyles are (I'm plagiarizing from other comments) a construction worker wolf-whistling, in some female-only section, and a guy in a gas mask.
But all the other gargoyles, monsters and demons and things, THOSE are real?
Yeah, I remember reading about this in some kind of kid's educational magazine about 15 or 20 years ago.
Right, and not to mention Klamath, Willamette, Deschutes, Tualatin, well, they might be obscure to you, but not if you live near Intel's big fabs in Oregon...
You got my vote. :-)
I just noticed this. They were good enough to mention that they tested only on pages without DOCTYPE headers, because they think that's a bad idea. Bully for them. But it throws IE 6 and Moz into "quirks mode" where strange and less than wonderful things may happen. For example, IE6/Win has the famous IE box-model size bug in quirks mode but not in standards mode. I don't know whether Opera has a distinction between "standards compliance mode" and "tag-soup mode".
the "methodological flaw" you refer to is that they didn't test everything in the CSS spec, and they tested some things that aren't in the spec (i.e. :hover on non-link elements, which AFAIK is not defined, but is also not prohibited.) That particular combination of tests puts Opera ahead. Others put Mozilla ahead. No doubt some combination does the same for IE or Konqueror. Hell, Netscape 4 is clearly the best. No other browser supports <layer> or <multicol>!
Once a fundie, always a fundie. People said the same thing to me when I was a creationist. :-)
That, I haven't tested. Opera's DOM support is not very good all-around -- applications I've created to work in IE 6 and Moz don't work in Opera, and I can't be bothered to find out why. But Moz's DOM support is pretty slow as well.
There are plenty of reports that demonstrate that Gecko's support is better. But since you asked, here.
The reason I use Mozilla instead of Opera, though, other than Opera's strange interface, is Mozilla's far superior DOM support and extensibility.
This is unquestionably true. Look at the total lack of success for Opera, despite the fact that it's a very high-quality browser, much faster than Navigator or Explorer, and with better CSS support. Would you drive a car called "Opera"? It sounds like a weenie hybrid hydrogen powered two-seater commuter hippie mobile, except EVEN MORE GUTLESS! Drivers of Plymouth Neons and Toyota Echoes would snicker at drivers of Operas! And iCab, well, like you said. Good God. Other than the Omni, which of course is used only on the Macintosh [snicker -ed] the rest are Proper American Muscular SUVs.
This is an old-sk00l flamewar, so everybody gets it evenly. But I think you (jgardn) may be the only hard-core creationist to have posted anything significant in this thread non-anonymously. That's worth a lot!
The creationist hypothesis says that the world, including the fossil record, is the way it is because God made it that way. The creationist hypothesis fits the observed facts perfectly, by definition.
That's not a hypothesis. It predicts nothing. It explains nothing. It also ignores that fact that the creationists I'm talking about, far from being theistic evolutionists -- a position I have no quarrel with -- believe Genesis 1 to be literal truth, despite the fact that they have no evidence for it. (They also, for reasons I don't fully understand, despite having been one, believe Genesis 2 to be figurative. Only because it's contradictory...)
It seems to me that you're far more prejudiced against people of faith than the average person of faith would be against you.
That's entirely possible. I don't deny it. It doesn't change the facts.
Evolution has never been posed by ANYONE as a "historical fact."
Well, I just did. But I know what you meant. If you really believe that, it shows that you haven't done the slighted bit of research into what evolution is.
This is true, but there is more evidence than that. To me, the most convincing evidence is the fact that all life can be described by a hierarchy that does not change if you use different criteria to build the tree. There is a very good description of this here. There is much more evidence than that, such as the distribution of categories of life in isolated areas of the planet, vestigial structures like hip bones in snakes and whales, and of course the fossil record, but to me, this is the core evidence.