Actually, over 200 civilizations have the same flood myth with similar details: one man (couple, family, etc.) is told by God that he will flood the entire earth. He builds a wooden vessel and survives (with or without animals) and everyone else dies. Even the man's name is Nue in Hawaii and Nuah in China.
This kind of correlation between people speaking different languages living in all continents is hard to ignore. Occam's razor says there was a global flood and the man (probably named Noah) saw everyone around him die and believed that God's forewarning saved him, at the very least.
Before we apply Ockham's Razor we have to filter out the made-up evidence. Yes, there are lots of flood myths and some have interesting elements in common. But no, there's not the kind of consistency biblical literalists like to believe there is.
Then, for whatever similar myths remain, Ockham's Razor would probably recommend cultural dissemination. That might be problematic in some cases, but then any claim that the myths represent the same event require an equal degree of dissemination.
Occam's razor says there was a global flood and the man (probably named Noah) saw everyone around him die and believed that God's forewarning saved him, at the very least.
Both geology and genetics tell us that there has never been a global flood. Every living species would have a genetic bottleneck from the time of the flood, and that isn't what we find.
More importantly, the biblical flood story portrays YHWH as an evil fuck-up. Why bother with a flood when he could just wish the evildoers out of existence? Why drown all the world's babies and kittens? Why didn't this solution to the problem of evil actually work???
If apologists for divinity had any sense they would distance themselves from the flood story even faster than the more secular minded do.
Even the man's name is Nue in Hawaii and Nuah in China.
Do you have sources for that? I just asked two Chinese coworkers and they have no idea what you're talking about and google doesn't turn up anything about a "Nue" in Hawaiian culture.
Wikipedia's list of flood myths has a Chinese "Nüwa". Unfortunately for the GP, it's the name of a Goddess that created mankind.
How do you like the fantasy of the earth being 4.5 billion years old? Scientists claim that no evidence of that age exists because there were allegedly several times when the entire crust turned molten. How convenient. So we are all expected to believe in a number that was invented by someone over a century ago just because they are scientists (shamans).
There's a fine article about how we know the age of the earth over at Wikipedia, in the unlikely event you want to learn facts that contradict your fantasies.
The timescales were invented by proponents of evolution long before any dating methods were developed. Those dating methods were conveniently calibrated to support those previously made up timescales.
Any time evidence popped up either here or on the moon which contradicted those timescales, the inconsistency was quickly covered up and the numbers were fudged to make it all fit again.
Sorry, but I (finally) learned from arguing with creationists that you can't educate someone by doing their homework for them if they don't want to be educated.
It's not like this information is hard to come by, if you're paying attention. But believe it or not, I don't keep a handy reference on tap for every fact I know. If you don't believe bears are mammals and Napoleon came from Corsica I might take a moment to call reality to your attention, but I'm damn sure not going to go dig out references for you. There's no ROI in it.
And yes, I have come to the sad point that I have to lump GW deniers in with evolution deniers.
Without ideology we wouldn't have the scientific method.
I find it strange that people think the scientific method is based on a philosophy or ideology. What scientists do is no different from what us common folk do when we debug a program or try to fix a mechanical system: you notice something funny (program gives wrong result, car won't start, water rising in basement) so you or the called-in expert speculates on the cause and then proceed on the basis of that speculation. If the facts don't bear it out, you pause, scratch your head and come up with a new speculation. Repeat as needed.
AFAICT even the most uneducated of us operate the same way in whatever we do. I suspect it's instinct, or at least such a basic result of the exercise of intelligence that no intelligent species could avoid operating that way.
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
It is of course always possible that something we don't understand is going on, but the physics of greenhouse gasses seems to be quite well established. There doesn't seem to be a lot of need to look farther, unless you just don't like the unavoidable conclusion.
And String theory doesn't count. It's about as scientific as Astrology.
A Slashdotter or hundreds of physicists... who's a fellow to believe?
String theory (variants thereof) conforms to observations as well as any other theory. What's lacking is an observation where the predictions diverge.
Until such time as such an observation becomes possible, if you want to knock string theory you should argue on the basis of Ockham's Razor, not on perceived parallels with astrology.
3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
Climate is going to shift; species are going to go extinct; agricultural and hydraulic "haves" are going to become "have-nots", and vice versa; nations will have new things to fight about; we're going to have to move all our coastal cities to higher ground; maybe a few other odds and ends.
4) When is that going to happen?
It's in progress now. Don't know when the shooting is going to start, but the effects seem to consistently outrun the predictions, so you should expect the shooting to start sooner rather than later.
Hopefully reports like this are taken as good news not fuel for the skeptics and deniers. Good news because we have a better chance and perhaps more time at managing with increased CO2
Unfortunately, the ongoing meltdown always turns out to be happening faster than the gloomy prognostics prognosticated.
And of course, the deniers already take *everything* as evidence for their views, so the chance that they won't seize on this is essentially non-existent.
idea people often take the form of upper management. they always assume their ideas are workable, and if their employees are having trouble rewriting reality to make them happen, then it's due to the employees' ignorance and not their own. classic ivory tower syndrome.
In the 1980s there was a lot of hype for tools that would let everyone (aka "your boss") do their own implementation. It's no surprise that that's not how the world works now, because they never actually know what they want.
Unless you're lucky enough to work somewhere that develops formal specifications before the coding starts, extracting requirements is the biggest part of a programmer's job. Usually done iteratively, i.e. give them what they ask for, hear what they don't like about it, and go hack out version n+1.
I think the general trends to predictions about future technology is that optimistic predictions often winds up being wrong
The problem with the singularity nonsense isn't that the prediction is over-optimistic, but rather that it's just plain silly. Running the Deep Blue logic on a faster machine won't make it any smarter; it would just be a fast stupid chess-playing program.
Ditto for every other AI program currently in existence. None will suddenly achieve general-purpose intelligence when they run on fast enough a machine.
Nor will you get HAL 9000 by running a chess-playing program, a speech-processing program, and a door-locking program together on a fast computer. If we want sentient machines we'll have to start working on the problem. At present we can't even all agree on which animals (if any) are sentient, let alone create a sentient machine of the most rudimentary sort.
I remember a line from Jesus Christ Superstar: "Could Mohammad move a mountain, or was that just PR?" Kurzweil is the media's darling and has grand PR. Personally, I think he's a crank.
The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies.
Didn't your daddy ever tell you the story about the little boy who cried 'wolf' ?
which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies.
IOW, it will embarrass powerful people, and we can't have that under any circumstances.
Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?
Apparently it's not a crime if the President of a superpower authorizes it.
We've consistently imprisoned people for waterboarding since the Spanish-American war. We convicted Japanese for it after WWII. We convicted our own troops for using it in Viet Nam. And we've even put some civilian law enforcement officers in prison for using it in Texas.
But suddenly it's OK...
Bet it wouldn't be OK if someone did it to our troops.
Yeah, in the USA we bailed out the banks. Could have bailed out the homeowners and thereby saved both them *and* the banks, But no, we only look after the big boys here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes, it can be fun though. We have the science of star trek, why not the science of the holy books? :)
"And God said TECHNOBABBLE, and there was light."
Actually, over 200 civilizations have the same flood myth with similar details: one man (couple, family, etc.) is told by God that he will flood the entire earth. He builds a wooden vessel and survives (with or without animals) and everyone else dies. Even the man's name is Nue in Hawaii and Nuah in China.
This kind of correlation between people speaking different languages living in all continents is hard to ignore. Occam's razor says there was a global flood and the man (probably named Noah) saw everyone around him die and believed that God's forewarning saved him, at the very least.
Before we apply Ockham's Razor we have to filter out the made-up evidence. Yes, there are lots of flood myths and some have interesting elements in common. But no, there's not the kind of consistency biblical literalists like to believe there is.
Then, for whatever similar myths remain, Ockham's Razor would probably recommend cultural dissemination. That might be problematic in some cases, but then any claim that the myths represent the same event require an equal degree of dissemination.
Occam's razor says there was a global flood and the man (probably named Noah) saw everyone around him die and believed that God's forewarning saved him, at the very least.
Both geology and genetics tell us that there has never been a global flood. Every living species would have a genetic bottleneck from the time of the flood, and that isn't what we find.
More importantly, the biblical flood story portrays YHWH as an evil fuck-up. Why bother with a flood when he could just wish the evildoers out of existence? Why drown all the world's babies and kittens? Why didn't this solution to the problem of evil actually work???
If apologists for divinity had any sense they would distance themselves from the flood story even faster than the more secular minded do.
Even the man's name is Nue in Hawaii and Nuah in China.
Do you have sources for that? I just asked two Chinese coworkers and they have no idea what you're talking about and google doesn't turn up anything about a "Nue" in Hawaiian culture.
Wikipedia's list of flood myths has a Chinese "Nüwa". Unfortunately for the GP, it's the name of a Goddess that created mankind.
How do you like the fantasy of the earth being 4.5 billion years old? Scientists claim that no evidence of that age exists because there were allegedly several times when the entire crust turned molten. How convenient. So we are all expected to believe in a number that was invented by someone over a century ago just because they are scientists (shamans).
There's a fine article about how we know the age of the earth over at Wikipedia, in the unlikely event you want to learn facts that contradict your fantasies.
The timescales were invented by proponents of evolution long before any dating methods were developed. Those dating methods were conveniently calibrated to support those previously made up timescales.
Any time evidence popped up either here or on the moon which contradicted those timescales, the inconsistency was quickly covered up and the numbers were fudged to make it all fit again.
Is that fantasy world all comfy and safe?
Sorry, but I (finally) learned from arguing with creationists that you can't educate someone by doing their homework for them if they don't want to be educated.
It's not like this information is hard to come by, if you're paying attention. But believe it or not, I don't keep a handy reference on tap for every fact I know. If you don't believe bears are mammals and Napoleon came from Corsica I might take a moment to call reality to your attention, but I'm damn sure not going to go dig out references for you. There's no ROI in it.
And yes, I have come to the sad point that I have to lump GW deniers in with evolution deniers.
Skepticism is good. Denial in face of a mountain of evidence is not.
See also: "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own reality."
Without ideology we wouldn't have the scientific method.
I find it strange that people think the scientific method is based on a philosophy or ideology. What scientists do is no different from what us common folk do when we debug a program or try to fix a mechanical system: you notice something funny (program gives wrong result, car won't start, water rising in basement) so you or the called-in expert speculates on the cause and then proceed on the basis of that speculation. If the facts don't bear it out, you pause, scratch your head and come up with a new speculation. Repeat as needed.
AFAICT even the most uneducated of us operate the same way in whatever we do. I suspect it's instinct, or at least such a basic result of the exercise of intelligence that no intelligent species could avoid operating that way.
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
It is of course always possible that something we don't understand is going on, but the physics of greenhouse gasses seems to be quite well established. There doesn't seem to be a lot of need to look farther, unless you just don't like the unavoidable conclusion.
Yes, actual reputable claims would be better.. citations needed.
I stand by those claims. If you're not aware of what's happening on your planet, I'm not the one that needs to dig out a newspaper.
And String theory doesn't count. It's about as scientific as Astrology.
A Slashdotter or hundreds of physicists... who's a fellow to believe?
String theory (variants thereof) conforms to observations as well as any other theory. What's lacking is an observation where the predictions diverge.
Until such time as such an observation becomes possible, if you want to knock string theory you should argue on the basis of Ockham's Razor, not on perceived parallels with astrology.
3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
Climate is going to shift; species are going to go extinct; agricultural and hydraulic "haves" are going to become "have-nots", and vice versa; nations will have new things to fight about; we're going to have to move all our coastal cities to higher ground; maybe a few other odds and ends.
4) When is that going to happen?
It's in progress now. Don't know when the shooting is going to start, but the effects seem to consistently outrun the predictions, so you should expect the shooting to start sooner rather than later.
Hopefully reports like this are taken as good news not fuel for the skeptics and deniers. Good news because we have a better chance and perhaps more time at managing with increased CO2
Unfortunately, the ongoing meltdown always turns out to be happening faster than the gloomy prognostics prognosticated.
And of course, the deniers already take *everything* as evidence for their views, so the chance that they won't seize on this is essentially non-existent.
idea people often take the form of upper management. they always assume their ideas are workable, and if their employees are having trouble rewriting reality to make them happen, then it's due to the employees' ignorance and not their own. classic ivory tower syndrome.
In the 1980s there was a lot of hype for tools that would let everyone (aka "your boss") do their own implementation. It's no surprise that that's not how the world works now, because they never actually know what they want.
Unless you're lucky enough to work somewhere that develops formal specifications before the coding starts, extracting requirements is the biggest part of a programmer's job. Usually done iteratively, i.e. give them what they ask for, hear what they don't like about it, and go hack out version n+1.
What about males who aren't gentlemen and females who aren't ladies?
(you insensitive clod)
It's full of three times the stars.
And that song about Van Gogh should have started "Starry, starry, starry, starry, starry, starry night".
I don't really have a horse in this race, I mean, I could care less which theory turns out to be correct.
Me neither. But it really seems odd that so many Slashdotters are so rabidly against the idea of dark matter.
The charge came right after the release of the iraq/afghanistan leak. And this interpolwarrant comes right after cablegate.
I shudder to think what's going to happen after bankgate.
Sure, "Collateral Murder" is a nice, neutral name.
Yeah, it should have just been "murder".
How would you feel if some other country was killing your relatives and neighbors, for any reason whatsoever?
I think the general trends to predictions about future technology is that optimistic predictions often winds up being wrong
The problem with the singularity nonsense isn't that the prediction is over-optimistic, but rather that it's just plain silly. Running the Deep Blue logic on a faster machine won't make it any smarter; it would just be a fast stupid chess-playing program.
Ditto for every other AI program currently in existence. None will suddenly achieve general-purpose intelligence when they run on fast enough a machine.
Nor will you get HAL 9000 by running a chess-playing program, a speech-processing program, and a door-locking program together on a fast computer. If we want sentient machines we'll have to start working on the problem. At present we can't even all agree on which animals (if any) are sentient, let alone create a sentient machine of the most rudimentary sort.
I remember a line from Jesus Christ Superstar: "Could Mohammad move a mountain, or was that just PR?" Kurzweil is the media's darling and has grand PR. Personally, I think he's a crank.
If you look at his recent history, there seem to be a whole bunch of reasonable posts modded down to -1. Seems pretty suspicious.
This has been a long-time problem.
Some people will downmod stuff they don't like, but a lot of stuff gets upmodded that doesn't deserve it. I figure it all comes out in the wash.
The Iraq and Afghan dumps were only "a little harmful" and barely worthy of classification. These cables, on the other hand, are strategically damaging the U.S., its interests, and its allies.
Didn't your daddy ever tell you the story about the little boy who cried 'wolf' ?
which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies.
IOW, it will embarrass powerful people, and we can't have that under any circumstances.
Whatever happened to justice against people who commit (war) crimes?
Apparently it's not a crime if the President of a superpower authorizes it.
We've consistently imprisoned people for waterboarding since the Spanish-American war. We convicted Japanese for it after WWII. We convicted our own troops for using it in Viet Nam. And we've even put some civilian law enforcement officers in prison for using it in Texas.
But suddenly it's OK...
Bet it wouldn't be OK if someone did it to our troops.
Should be the more appropriate headline here.
Yeah, in the USA we bailed out the banks. Could have bailed out the homeowners and thereby saved both them *and* the banks, But no, we only look after the big boys here.