> I don't live in US. I read about people not turning up for voting. But I saw the long queues on TV. What is the turnout? Is it better than previous elections or is it the same or worse?
We're expecting the best turnout in decades, but there's a strip of nasty weather right across the country which might reduce turnout in that area, which includes a couple of swing states.
I've seen reports of as many as 40% of registered voters participating in early voting, in some towns.
> I don't see a difference. Scientists every day take their personal beliefs (for example, that all phenomena have a materialistic cause) and work from there.
> If you say, "but it's obvious that all phenomena have a materialistic cause" you are begging the question. To a theist, the existence of God is just as obvious.
Who said anything about materialistic causes? Science is bound to evidence, not to materialism.
> is assumes that everything that's important is observable.
Yes [and no]. If you assume there are hidden agents that affect everything that happens, you can't do any science at all. (Or religion either; see further below.)
But the issue isn't whether science can aspire to omniscience, but rather which is the better guide to reality: what we see, or what our ancestors told us.
[The "and no" is because we don't actually assume that everything important is observable, e.g. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all the immense challenges for science that follow from it. But I bracket this because I don't think it's what you meant.]
> Kind of a faith in itself (to see is to believe).
Certainly there's a philosophical problem with it, but we rely on it just to make it through the day. How do you know you're taking your morning leak in the john instead of wetting the bed? How do you know you're eating breakfast instead of jumping off a cliff?
Also, such an appeal to nihilism is pretty useless as a support for keeping creationism in the ring. How do you know the bible really exists, or if it does, how do you know it says what the letters on the page look like they say?
> Nobody has a problem with intelligent design as a philosophy or religion.
FWIW, I have trouble with it as philosophy because it relies on arguments that are transparent bullshit. As for religion, I've seen theists on talk.origins condemn it as a heresy.
So yeah, strictly speaking some people do have a problem with it as philosophy or religion. But your bigger point about the masquerade as science still stands.
> Displayed by both sides. [...] Evolution is hardly a refutation of religion, and "Creationism" is the pathetic blithering of men who have read their Bible incorrectly.
But how many scientists are actually invoking evolution as a refutation of religion?
Biological science certainly refutes some groups' specific religious beliefs, e.g. special creation according to kind, but it does not refute "religion" in general. But as for arrogance, most biological scientists are merely trying to understand how things work, rather than practicing anti-religion apologetics.
> Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found.
> This article supports what the Bible says about all humans descending from Noah in Asia (i.e. Noah's ark settled in Armenia after a global flood about 4200 years ago.)
4200 - 3500 = ?
Didn't you notice that your own account allows the MRCA to be more recent than the origin of the species?
BTW, if you're ever in a bookstore you should thumb through a historical atlas and see what kind of cool stuff was happening on our planet 4200 years ago.
> Most molecular biologists who are in the intelligent design camp are not against "micro-evolution", but are instead against "macro-evolution" -- primodial soup-type theories of genesis of life.
Some of the leaders of the movement don't reject evolution at all; they just argue that God^w some unknown Intelligent Designer was involved somewhere along the way. But they participate in a "big tent" strategy of "let the creationists come unto me", by minimizing the differences in opinion about the age of the earth and the extent to which evolution works out God's plan. (The backstabbing can wait until they defeat the common enemy, secular science and government.)
Given the neocon connections of the leading proponents of ID, lots of people doubt that they believe what they're saying at all, and suspect it's a deliberate attempt to use religion as an opiate for the masses.
At any rate, their arguments rely on a pile of fallacies of fact and logic that they should have been able to spot while still undergraduates, if not highschool students, so I find it hard to take them seriously as anything other than demagogues.
> I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another, it doesn't affect the core basis of my beliefs. This has little to do with morality and my day to day life.
Unfortunately, many of the most backward sects have made rejection of evolution an article of faith.
The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't.
> When they poll "likely voters" they ignore, among other considerations, people who have cellphones. AFAIK, they only poll over land lines.
When the polls are ballpark close they're useless anyway, because the election isn't decided by the popular vote. What matters is how the votes are distributed through the various states.
> On one hand, Bush Co. represents everything that he hates about America. The election of Kerry may just be the change in foreign policy that he's looking for.
It's doubtful that Kerry will change the things that appear to rile OBL the most: support for Israel right or wrong, and real or perceived economic/cultural/military imperialism throughout the Middle East.
> I have no doubt that if Bin Laden could attack us like he did on 9/11 that he would. The fact that he hasn't been able to do this for over three years is why I am voting for Bush
I'm curious why so many people think Bush is our best bet for security. Has he actually done anything any other president wouldn't have done? (Other than getting us into an unnecessary war in Iraq?)
Slashdot Mirror
> Voted only for veterans! They know the true costs of war. And they realize when it's really neccessary.
Well, some don't, but at least those will protect our precious bodily fluids.
Ads for Spam... go figure.
> and Drudge is known for his share of whoppers, but this is a very disturbing report indeed...
Disturbing, yes, but it has probably been happening all over the country for decades.
> don't bitch about the president during the next 4 years
Corollary 1: If they one you vote for loses, bitch continually for the next four years.
> I don't live in US. I read about people not turning up for voting. But I saw the long queues on TV. What is the turnout? Is it better than previous elections or is it the same or worse?
We're expecting the best turnout in decades, but there's a strip of nasty weather right across the country which might reduce turnout in that area, which includes a couple of swing states.
I've seen reports of as many as 40% of registered voters participating in early voting, in some towns.
> For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!
Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?
If someone tries to interfere with your vote, holler for one of the guys in blue helmets.
For those who haven't checked lately, SCOX has been trading at around 3.0 lately.
> For real-time monitoring of the election results,
ping Cheney's heart monitor and note the response time.
> I don't see a difference. Scientists every day take their personal beliefs (for example, that all phenomena have a materialistic cause) and work from there.
> If you say, "but it's obvious that all phenomena have a materialistic cause" you are begging the question. To a theist, the existence of God is just as obvious.
Who said anything about materialistic causes? Science is bound to evidence, not to materialism.
> is assumes that everything that's important is observable.
Yes [and no]. If you assume there are hidden agents that affect everything that happens, you can't do any science at all. (Or religion either; see further below.)
But the issue isn't whether science can aspire to omniscience, but rather which is the better guide to reality: what we see, or what our ancestors told us.
[The "and no" is because we don't actually assume that everything important is observable, e.g. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all the immense challenges for science that follow from it. But I bracket this because I don't think it's what you meant.]
> Kind of a faith in itself (to see is to believe).
Certainly there's a philosophical problem with it, but we rely on it just to make it through the day. How do you know you're taking your morning leak in the john instead of wetting the bed? How do you know you're eating breakfast instead of jumping off a cliff?
Also, such an appeal to nihilism is pretty useless as a support for keeping creationism in the ring. How do you know the bible really exists, or if it does, how do you know it says what the letters on the page look like they say?
> whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't.
BTW, if I had been speaking carefully I would have said "to winnow out the beliefs that aren't true from the ones that still might be."
> Nobody has a problem with intelligent design as a philosophy or religion.
FWIW, I have trouble with it as philosophy because it relies on arguments that are transparent bullshit. As for religion, I've seen theists on talk.origins condemn it as a heresy.
So yeah, strictly speaking some people do have a problem with it as philosophy or religion. But your bigger point about the masquerade as science still stands.
> Displayed by both sides. [...] Evolution is hardly a refutation of religion, and "Creationism" is the pathetic blithering of men who have read their Bible incorrectly.
But how many scientists are actually invoking evolution as a refutation of religion?
Biological science certainly refutes some groups' specific religious beliefs, e.g. special creation according to kind, but it does not refute "religion" in general. But as for arrogance, most biological scientists are merely trying to understand how things work, rather than practicing anti-religion apologetics.
> Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found.
> This article supports what the Bible says about all humans descending from Noah in Asia (i.e. Noah's ark settled in Armenia after a global flood about 4200 years ago.)
4200 - 3500 = ?
Didn't you notice that your own account allows the MRCA to be more recent than the origin of the species?
BTW, if you're ever in a bookstore you should thumb through a historical atlas and see what kind of cool stuff was happening on our planet 4200 years ago.
> I thought Dawkins basically pulverised the "intelligent design" thesis in his "Climbing mount improbable".
ID gets pulverised several times a day on talk.origins, but that doesn't keep its proponents from repeating the pulverised arguments.
> Most molecular biologists who are in the intelligent design camp are not against "micro-evolution", but are instead against "macro-evolution" -- primodial soup-type theories of genesis of life.
Some of the leaders of the movement don't reject evolution at all; they just argue that God^w some unknown Intelligent Designer was involved somewhere along the way. But they participate in a "big tent" strategy of "let the creationists come unto me", by minimizing the differences in opinion about the age of the earth and the extent to which evolution works out God's plan. (The backstabbing can wait until they defeat the common enemy, secular science and government.)
Given the neocon connections of the leading proponents of ID, lots of people doubt that they believe what they're saying at all, and suspect it's a deliberate attempt to use religion as an opiate for the masses.
At any rate, their arguments rely on a pile of fallacies of fact and logic that they should have been able to spot while still undergraduates, if not highschool students, so I find it hard to take them seriously as anything other than demagogues.
> I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another, it doesn't affect the core basis of my beliefs. This has little to do with morality and my day to day life.
Unfortunately, many of the most backward sects have made rejection of evolution an article of faith.
The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't.
> What religion are you?
> Vi or emacs?
Looks like you got an accidental line break in there.
> When they poll "likely voters" they ignore, among other considerations, people who have cellphones. AFAIK, they only poll over land lines.
When the polls are ballpark close they're useless anyway, because the election isn't decided by the popular vote. What matters is how the votes are distributed through the various states.
This is just a rehash of an old study showing why open-faced peanut butter sandwiches always land face down.
> On one hand, Bush Co. represents everything that he hates about America. The election of Kerry may just be the change in foreign policy that he's looking for.
It's doubtful that Kerry will change the things that appear to rile OBL the most: support for Israel right or wrong, and real or perceived economic/cultural/military imperialism throughout the Middle East.
> I have no doubt that if Bin Laden could attack us like he did on 9/11 that he would. The fact that he hasn't been able to do this for over three years is why I am voting for Bush
I'm curious why so many people think Bush is our best bet for security. Has he actually done anything any other president wouldn't have done? (Other than getting us into an unnecessary war in Iraq?)