Well of course your single, anecdotal incident aplies to all unions and unions in general. It certainly wouldn't be perhaps and exception or isolated incident or anything.
Perhaps my telling you about the unionized workeres I have worked with who took great pride in their work means nothing.
Perhaps I can tell you a single anecdotal incident of where management and corporations screwed over and exploited people in order to make a buck. I'm sure you would agree then that that applies to all corporations and management, right?
"but isn't it odd that Toyota makes more money per vehicle than either of them but builds cars in non-union, american factories, that they are apparently able to staff satifactorly with lower wage workers?"
Untrue, at least here in Canada. Toyota pays their workers exactly the same as the Unionized CAW workers at the Big 3, with the same benefits. Toyota makes money not because they aren't unionized, but because they simply make a better product that responds better to the consumers and market (Prius fro instance, or simply good quality, better than domestics).
Of course in Canada, Toyota also saves $1500 per car on health insurance administration because of our public healthcare system.
As Jane Jacobs pointed out in "The Dark Age Ahead" its not Chrisianity, but the demise of secularism - since it is entirely possible to be both a Christian in belief and secular in governence.
It was the surge of secularism in the 1600's that allowed the West to Surge ahead of Mulsim and Chinese cultures, because it also encouraged great scientific and technological advances at a fast pace.
Recently, especially in the US, this secular, science based ideal has been and is being replaced by fundementalism (from some forms of Christianity) and ideology based science (from the fundies first cousin, neoconservatism). It was this kind of "ideology" based science that meant Hitler didn't build the bomb (because it was "Jewish" science) and the Russians abandoned Darwinism for Lamarkism and millions starved when the wheat didn't grow.
The same thing is happening now in the North America, and the US in particular. And bad science breeds bad science, thus creating a generational piral effect. This is what caused the greatly advanced Muslim cultures of the 15th Century to collapse.
Actually, he threw a few cruise missles at him in '98 but the Republican congress threw a big flap about him doing that to "cover up and redirect their attention" away from the Lewinsky affair that he had no political backup from them to use bigger and better methods.
But by all means, feel free to damn Clinton when he does something to get bin Laden and then use that same thing to damn him for NOT doing something.
Its not like he had a giant briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strik in America" sitting on his desk or anything...
So if Bush is so opposed to destroying embryos, so opposed to "science that destroys life to save life", why is he so keen to send them to Iraq or who-knows-next when they are 18 years old?
Scenario 1: You as an end user wouldn't have to. It would be included with your operating system, which is not currently the case. If you have to seek one out you would probably seek out Sun's, but if your Linux distro came with Apache's you would just use it unless it was unsuitable in some way.
This would make sense except that Dell and HP already sell Windows machines with Sun's latest JVM installed by default. So more than likely an "end user" already has Java installed. If its linux well, the same goes - my Suse 9.1 came with both Sun's and IBM's 1.4.x JDK installed. Harmony would solve the problem for the more strict distributions like Gentoo and Debian and probably for *BSD. I don't think this a particularly good reason.
If a user is smart enough to download and install the app they want, they are smart enough to download the JVM. And they should only have to do it once, since the automatic update feature has been part of the JRE since 1.4.1.
Scenario 2: You develop Java apps. Right now you have to direct end users to another website (Sun's) and follow instructions found there to download and install Java. You could instead offer an install package that already includes Harmony.
Try re-reading the licence. The JRE is freely redistributal. I have seen a great many software package installs that come in versions with or without the JRE included. Most developers assume that if you are downloading a Java app, you already have Java. If they don't, they would rather let you get the latest verion from the source rather than maintain their own version. You know, "the man with two watches never knows what time it is."
Scenario 3: You want to use Java on an unsupported machine. Right now you don't really have many options for running Java apps on PocketPCs, for example (Like my Jornada 568). An Open Source JVM would almost certainly be ported a wide variety of platforms (considering how many platforms have reimplementations like Waba attempted for them the demand is obviously there).
Now this is a good reason for an Open Source Java. I would love to have a Java I could tweak or compile for an iPaq, etc.
Open Source Java would speed adoption on a wider variety of "non-standard" platforms from a technical standpoint. This will make Java more ubiquitous (and probably better and more efficient as well). It will also satisfy the licencing zealots, having the same effect.
I think Harmony and an open source Java are a great step forward, but not for the two reasons mentioned.
When I was a teenager, some Republican American President and former actor said that countries that did these kinds of things to its own people were "the focus of evil in the modern world" and "the evil empire".
25 years later, another Republican President says they are absolutely nescesary for "security" and to "support the troops". So how come if I say that the US is now the focus of evil in the modern world or an evil empire, I get modded as "Flamebait" or "Troll"?
In a nation ruled by the politics of fear, this is not surprising. Look at who stands to benefit from this:
Will you be safer from an "terrorist" attack? Nope, this may even make it easier by creating a false sense of security.
Will it make it easier to catch terrorists? The CIA and the FBI seemed to have all sorts of information on 19 folks travelling on their own identities 4 years ago but couldn't figure it out. This won't change because of a shiny new card.
Will it be easier for large corporations to use information to better target their goods, prevent labour from effectively organizing and get into the "new" business of selling personal data? Yep.
You guys once had a great country. It is very sad to see it sliding into corporatism and facism.
Frankly, the billions spent on the card would be better spent on intelligence gathering and disemination. Now THAT would provide protection to the US. Unfortunately, it wouldn't provide a central information database for corporate America.
Because, despite your mis-interpretation of "survival of the fittest", that kind of behaviour is actually quite detrimental to passing on genes than altruism and cooperation. It is not "survival of the fittest" but rather survival of those organisms more able to adapt to change in the environment.
You are far more likey to have food, shelter, and safety if you cooperate with your neighbours and kin than if you bully them or kill them. It may seem to work in the short term, but eventually the social system breaks down and these genes do not survive - you are not able to reproduce or protect the children you do create (or the children of your kins). Check out The Evolution of Cooperation. Paul Tobin has a good summary here with a very good summary. This is also a tenant of Game Theory as well.
No, despite your attempts to argue from fear and ignorance, living the "survival of the fittest" that you describe is not how evolution works and is actually not the best strategy for survival of the genes - cooperation, altruism and acting in a moral and ethic manner are. That is why most people are genuinely good and why, despite our incredible numbers on the earth, we AREN'T killing and raping each other on a daily basis.
Acting that way is natural and I don't need a "God" to give me morality or force me to obey rules on the threat of eternal torture. I can just act they way I know from millions of years of biological evolution, is the "right" way.
The most important, deepest questions we ask begin with "why", such as "why are we here", why is there suffering and evil etc. Science cannot answer these.
Why are we here?
To survive long enough to reproduce and perpetuate our genes. No other reason. No reason needed. We just 'are'.
Why is there suffering and evil?
Well suffering is simply the imbalance in nature when one species grows too large for the environment is is in. Cold, but that's the way it is.
As for 'evil', well I'm not sure that exists in the sense you think. 'Evil' behaviour is the result of the suffering mentioned above. Cold, but that's the way it is.
Does that mean we do nothing about these things? No, we fight to alleviate them because the removal of 'suffering' is the best way to ensure that your offspring or your genes (in relatives or other kin) are propogated to the future. Cooperation and altruism are the best survival strategy in evolution (balanced with some degree of strength and agression). This helps get rid of 'evil' as well.
Of course if your are thinking about suffering and evil in the Bible sense, then its obvious - God created it all. All suffering and evil are the creation of God, according to the Bible.
And considering this, it is no surprise that more suffering and evil have occurred because of religion (especially Christianity orver the past 1700 to 2000 years) than any thing science could dream up.
So to alleviate suffering and evil, we get rid of God and religion.
Now, nobody can take YOU seriously when all you do is claim there is no evidence for evolution (which there is, see above for but a small sampling), talk about the multitudes of evidence for ID, yet fail to show any such evidence?
So let me ask:
What is the process of speciation that ID endorses? What observed or experimental evidence is there for this? Where is the evidence for this from other fields, such as physics, chemistry or archeology\anthropology?
Let me know when you can present this.
I am more than willing to change my view of ID if the evidence is presented and can be verified and can hold up to scrutiny. Are you willing to do the same in regard to evolution? Are you prepared to admit that evolution is correct if the evidence is shown? Even if that means the Bible is wrong or it opens the possiblility that God doesn't exist or isn't needed?
Well, that may be so, but I am willing to bet my next paycheque that if you ask the ID crowd which creation myth they mean, it sure as hell won't be the Aboriginal "Dream time" one.
They aren't talking about the classical Greek version...
They aren't talking about anything in the Vedic scriptures or the ancient Persian myths (well, except for cribbing Gilgamesh).
They aren't talkinga bout multiple creators involved in the world.
They aren't saying it was Slartybardfarst or Erich Von Daneken's aliens.
They are talking about a single, monolithic, immortal and everlasting God that created the world through a conscious act of will and still acts in this world to change things. This is the creation myth of Jews, Christians and Muslims. And in the US right now, its not the Jews and Muslims that hold sway...
Well, even though it is completely irrelavant to evolution, I'll answer anyway.
I don't know. Science doesn't know.
Yet.
There are some hypothesis, but nothing concrete. The investigation continues. There is no evidence to point definitively. The Large Hadron Collider may provide experimental evidence to help clear the air, but we may not know for years, perhaps hundreds of years.
Oh well, the quest continues. Searching for knowledge and ansers is the rasion d'etre of science.
Now, if you have verifiable evidence that points to your "God" then feel free to present it. Please not aht a 2500 year old passage in a book does not constitute evidence of anything (since the two contradiction stories of creation presented in it are BOTH provably incorrect).
Oh and one other thing. If by your question you seem to imply that God created such matter out of nothing.
Let me ask
Where did the God that created said matter come from?
(PS If God can be always existing with no begining, so can the matter)
In science, observed facts (not enough visible matter accounted for in stars, pertubations in the orbit of an outer planet) whose causes are unknown are the basis of these hypothosese. Anything that later turns out to be false, or doesn't fit with this and other observed or experimental data is tossed aside (such as your aether - reasonable when first proposed, but later found out to be untrue).
The more information that is gathered, the clearer the picture (well unless we're talking Quantum mechanics...;-) )
ID on the other hand, takes a conclusion (that the universe was designed and created, infering therefore the existance of a supreme being or Creator) and finds the evidence that only shows this to be true. Ignoring or actively trying to discredit evidence to the contrary. And for ID there is lots of evidence to the contrary.
The conclusion should fit the evidnence, the evidenc should not fit the conclusion.
Beyond that, most of ID can be boiled down to pointing out weaknesses in evolution and saying "So how do you explain that then? Eh? Huh? See, it must be God so ALL of evolution is wrong..."
A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation. Why do you think that people get a shot for the chicken pox? So that they will become resistant to it. That's not a mutation...it's resistance. It's like saying that our cells mutated after we got the shot from the dr.'s office for the chicken pox.
My goodness, if you think human resistance to disease and bacterium restistance to anti-biotics are the same, then you are truly need an education.
Bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics because of two independant, yet interrelated things. First, some bacteria, through random mutations, develop the trait that makes anti-biotics inneffective on them. Now, this trait, as long as it doesn't prevent the bacteria from reproducing, will remain dormant. The numbers of this bacteria will remain small, perhaps miniscule, because of the vast numbers of "normal" bacteria. The trait may or may not get passed on. Now, when anti-biotics are miss-used, those bacteria without the mutation are wiped out. Only those with the mutation, however small, survive and reproduce. With no other normal bacteria to compete with, this mutant reproduces at will and becomes dominant. Suddenly there are strains of bacteria for which anti-biotics are useless. And if this doesn't happen, the species goe extinct.
That, my friend, is the process of evolution. It works at the microscopic and macroscopic levels (otherwise you might be a homo erectus rather than a neanderthal). This example is somewhat simplistic but you see the elegance process. Random mutation+change in the environment will stir evolution - only those able to adapt to the new environment will survive to reproduce and thus propgate the mutant genes. After a few million years, you fit your environment so perfectly, you'd swear the environment was designed for you...;-)
It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us. You seem to be denying God an awful lot...are you mad at God for something? Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?
I guess it would be easier for you to believe that, wouldn't it. I go where the evidence takes me. I don't need faith to believe "we came from dust and gravity" because that is where the evidence points. There is no evidence for God. I'm not "mad at God"...I can't be mad at something that, as far as I am concerned, doesn't exist. I am "one of those atheists" who doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence. I believe in cooperation, altruism and the ethics and philosophy that spring from them because it has been shown to provide an evolutionary advantage and is thus, the best survival strategy. Doing what I want want without regard fo the conse
Please provide a definition of the terms so we may design this experiment:
Define this "God" that is to be proved or disproved. What do you mean "God"? What are the charateristics of this entity? Describe it's abilities.
This is one of the biggest problems with "God"...ask 50 people to define "God" you get 50 answers.
I think its pretty easy to show that the "God" as depicted in the book commonly know as "The Bible" is not real, as the book itself is full of cntradictions, errors and outright falacies.
So feel free to define what you mean by "God" and we can go forward with an experiment.
Of course, I might be the Devil trying to lead you astray. Or God himself try to test you.
Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense - plenty of evidence from multiple disciplines that support it. Observable evidence and experimental evidence. Evolution is a fact. It is observable. It is falsifiable. It is real and factual. Think "Theory of Gravity" - gravity can be observed and measured. It is real. It is a fact. How gravity works may be up for discussion but Gravity fact.
ID is not a "theory" in this same sense. There is no evidence supporting it. It is an idea. A great deal of available observations and experimental evidence actually contradict ID. It is a "theory" in a sense of the dictionary - "I think it works like this" without supporting evidence.
In this sense school boards in Kansas are wrong. They are not the same, they are not even in the same league.
There is no evidence for the "truth" of Christianity. If you have some I'd be happy to see it (NOTE: The Bible is a book written by Middle Eastern Mystics 2500 to 1700 years ago. It is evidence of nothing more than the ability to write and bind books during this time period). But that is beside the point.
ID is not science. It is a naked attempt by certain fundementalist Christians to push their beliefs on everyone. 19 years ago it was called "Young Earth" and before that simply Creationism - the belief that the book of Genesis is true and that we were created by "God". There are about 3 to 4 Billion people on this planet that do not subscribe to that myth.
If you wish to teach ID in Philosophy, Religion, Myth and Folklore or other similar courses, knock yourself out. But it is not science and not on par with evolution and should not be taught as such in a science class.
Your premise is based on the assumption that there is only one universe. Had things turned out different in this one then they'd be, well, different. And a differnt version of us would be wondering that it must be designed, since "we" fit "perfectly" into that slightly different universe. The universe was not designed to fit us, we evloved the way we are because the universe is the way it is. No other reason.
Qunatum theory and other discipline in physics postulate that there may be an infinite number of universes that come into existance. Our universe is not impossible, just improbable. But when you have an infinite number of universes coming into existance, then one like ours it is going to happen. And here we are.
There are probably universe with no life. Or with nothing by helium. or with totally differnt life. Universes that lasted seconds and ones that lasted billions of years.
The universe wasn't fine tuned for us, we were fine tuned (via evolution) for it. if it had been different so would we, and we'd be wondering the same thing.
Atheists generally do not believe in God because there is no evidence to support the assertion. Some don't believe because it never occured to them the need for such a construct.
"There is a God" is not the default condition that atheists must prove wrong. It is up to the theists to prove that such a thing as God exists.
The burden of proof is always on those making the fantastic assertion. Blair Scott of the American Athiests has a good answer on his page. The site is quite informative.
He has a great analogy there which I will borrow to explain:
If I tell you I have a poodle at my house. You will believe me. Why? Well, you know poodles exist and you have observed them. Or you have other evidence of the existance of poodles like pictures and foot prints, even if you havn't observed them.
Now if I tell you that I have a purple poodle that can fly and predict next week's lottery numbers, will you believe me? I hope not. In this case, I had better come up with some pretty compelling evidence. But if I don't and tell you you must believe me on faith, is it up to the anti-poodlist to prove that the dog doesn't exist? Is it reasonable to take the default stand that this creature exists until proven otherwise?
Nope.
You don't beleive in the poodle because there is no evidence, not becasue you can prove to yourself that it doesn't exist. You do need to "prove" anything.
In case you missed it,dog==god, anti-poodleist==athiest.
I'll stop being an atheist when theists can prove that God exists. I'm not picky. Bible God, Vishnu, Great Spirit, Loki, Venus...any old God will do.
Where to begin? Well how about just the highlights:
Living organisms. We can look at living organisms and see that they are incredibly complex, with well-designed, interdependent parts, each aspect far beyond our own human ability to understand fully, let alone duplicate. Each living thing is governed and energized by the information-loaded DNA molecule, consisting of myriads of genes and proteins of intense precision, each doing its job and each depending on the other to do its job. Evolutionists say it all happened in a step-by-step sequence by a totally random process. Creationists say it was designed.
Well, this is the whole arguement. What is your point? Evolution has a great deal of observed evidence on how this happened over billions of years. You think it looks designed, but provide no evidence for a designer. Ironically, you think that way because humans evolved tha ability to recognize patterns as a survival technique. Sometimes they see patterns where none exist (think "Backward masking" on records...). Creationist have an idea without supporting evidence.
Mutations. Never has a truly beneficial mutation been observed, a random alteration which produces a new and better gene. Creation teaches that there shouldn't be, evolutionists assure us there have been billions and billions, but they are still looking for an example. What is needed is new and increased information in the DNA information code, but all science can show is that over time information is lost in such a system. Creationists point to the never-violated Second Law of Thermodynamics--the scientific law of increasing disorder over time--while evolutionists continue to maintain that certain chemical reactions produce order that changes ameba-to-man. This spontaneous generation has long ago been disproved, but evolutionists say it happened at least once. (But they were not there.)
I suggest next time you are sick, that you go to a hospital in Montreal. You will experience mutation first hand by the name of C. defacile, a bacterium that has mutated to become anti-boitic resistant. This has happened within the last 80 years. That's about as closed to observed as one can get. All the others can be see in the fossil record. For more info check here or here for the debunking of the other miss-information in this one.
Transitional links. The fossil record is overflowing with "gaps"--no organisms bridging the span between basic categories have ever been found. Creationists say such organisms never existed, and there shouldn't be any transitional fossils. Evolutionists explain this lack of transitional links away by punctuated equilibrium (evolution happened faster at different times during these transitional link periods) and hope to find them someday.
Ah yes the old "God of the Gaps" argument. Seems no matter how many times transitional fossils are found, creationist always revert to the "what about the transition between those?" recursive argument. Like this:
1980: Early Fossil ----->Transitional -------> Later Fossil
What about between the first and the transition?
1990: Early Fossil ---> Trans 1 ----> Trans2 -----> Later Fossil
What about between trans1 and trans2?
Thanks to Calculus, this arguement can go on forever. God is always in the gaps, not matter how small the gaps are. It still isn't evidence.
Evolutionists spend great effort to propose mathematical models for the Big Bang. The evidence consists of varied points of light that don't move, that change only when they destroy themselves. Never do we see stars evolving from gas. Evolutionists, in order to save their mathematical models, propose imaginary cold, dark matter comprising 90% of the mass of
Scientific "theory" vs dictionary meaning of "theory"
In science, nothing becomes a theory until it has a mountain of evidence, both observable and experimental back it up. Not until predicted events or phenomena are actually observed in nature, following the predicted pattern. Other scientific "theories" wtih equal and at time less evidence than Evolution: Gravity, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics. If any of these were not "true" or were less than "facts" you could not have entered your miss-informed post via the internet to/., let alone just sit in your chair to do it. Science call s these facts "theories" because science and scientist do not have the hubris to think they have the final answer. They realize that new, better theories may come along and supplant the old ones, that better observations or new experimental facts may cause the theory to be changed or "tweaked" to better explain things.
The dictionary definition of "theory" you seem to be talking about, is called a hypothesis in science. It may be an intriguing idea but does not yet have any or enough supporting evidence. All theories were once hypothesese. Newtonian physics was the theory when relativity was the hypothesis, for example, but is now well proven. Something else may come along to change even this (M-theory or String Theory, for instance). All that is required is evidence and proof.
ID and creationism are wrong because they lack any evidence and proof. They do not use the scientific method and assume a conclusion and look for evidence to support it rather than observing and experimenting and drawing the conclusions from that - Go where the evidence takes you, even if you don't like where that is.
Therefore, ID and creation ism are not science and should not be taught in a science classroom. If the evidence ever appears that will change.
The ACLU is right. By teaching ID as fact it is not only bad science, but an endorsment of a particular religion, since not all religions support an creation myth as depicted in ID.
Slashdot Mirror
Well of course your single, anecdotal incident aplies to all unions and unions in general. It certainly wouldn't be perhaps and exception or isolated incident or anything.
Perhaps my telling you about the unionized workeres I have worked with who took great pride in their work means nothing.
Perhaps I can tell you a single anecdotal incident of where management and corporations screwed over and exploited people in order to make a buck. I'm sure you would agree then that that applies to all corporations and management, right?
"but isn't it odd that Toyota makes more money per vehicle than either of them but builds cars in non-union, american factories, that they are apparently able to staff satifactorly with lower wage workers?"
Untrue, at least here in Canada. Toyota pays their workers exactly the same as the Unionized CAW workers at the Big 3, with the same benefits. Toyota makes money not because they aren't unionized, but because they simply make a better product that responds better to the consumers and market (Prius fro instance, or simply good quality, better than domestics).
Of course in Canada, Toyota also saves $1500 per car on health insurance administration because of our public healthcare system.
So not quite as cut and dry as you make it out...
http://www.milw0rm.com/
/. there is the link I was referring to.
Damn
I got news for you, script kiddies and crackers have been exploiting this since before it was an advisory.
Most of them can go to places like this to get the exploit. And if it is here, its been floating around the underground or IRC for a lot longer.
Releasing the patch sooner will protect more people. Holding off makes no sense. Once its patched no one can use it.
As Jane Jacobs pointed out in "The Dark Age Ahead" its not Chrisianity, but the demise of secularism - since it is entirely possible to be both a Christian in belief and secular in governence.
It was the surge of secularism in the 1600's that allowed the West to Surge ahead of Mulsim and Chinese cultures, because it also encouraged great scientific and technological advances at a fast pace.
Recently, especially in the US, this secular, science based ideal has been and is being replaced by fundementalism (from some forms of Christianity) and ideology based science (from the fundies first cousin, neoconservatism). It was this kind of "ideology" based science that meant Hitler didn't build the bomb (because it was "Jewish" science) and the Russians abandoned Darwinism for Lamarkism and millions starved when the wheat didn't grow.
The same thing is happening now in the North America, and the US in particular. And bad science breeds bad science, thus creating a generational piral effect. This is what caused the greatly advanced Muslim cultures of the 15th Century to collapse.
Be forwarned from history.
You were at War in 1969 too. If you WANT to spend the money, you could.
Of course not going to war based on lies so you can have the money to furhter science and humanity in the first place might be a good idea too.
Actually, he threw a few cruise missles at him in '98 but the Republican congress threw a big flap about him doing that to "cover up and redirect their attention" away from the Lewinsky affair that he had no political backup from them to use bigger and better methods.
But by all means, feel free to damn Clinton when he does something to get bin Laden and then use that same thing to damn him for NOT doing something.
Its not like he had a giant briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strik in America" sitting on his desk or anything...
So if Bush is so opposed to destroying embryos, so opposed to "science that destroys life to save life", why is he so keen to send them to Iraq or who-knows-next when they are 18 years old?
Doesn't he respect life?
Just wondering...
This would make sense except that Dell and HP already sell Windows machines with Sun's latest JVM installed by default. So more than likely an "end user" already has Java installed. If its linux well, the same goes - my Suse 9.1 came with both Sun's and IBM's 1.4.x JDK installed. Harmony would solve the problem for the more strict distributions like Gentoo and Debian and probably for *BSD. I don't think this a particularly good reason.
If a user is smart enough to download and install the app they want, they are smart enough to download the JVM. And they should only have to do it once, since the automatic update feature has been part of the JRE since 1.4.1.
Try re-reading the licence. The JRE is freely redistributal. I have seen a great many software package installs that come in versions with or without the JRE included. Most developers assume that if you are downloading a Java app, you already have Java. If they don't, they would rather let you get the latest verion from the source rather than maintain their own version. You know, "the man with two watches never knows what time it is."
Now this is a good reason for an Open Source Java. I would love to have a Java I could tweak or compile for an iPaq, etc.
Open Source Java would speed adoption on a wider variety of "non-standard" platforms from a technical standpoint. This will make Java more ubiquitous (and probably better and more efficient as well). It will also satisfy the licencing zealots, having the same effect.
I think Harmony and an open source Java are a great step forward, but not for the two reasons mentioned.
When I was a teenager, some Republican American President and former actor said that countries that did these kinds of things to its own people were "the focus of evil in the modern world" and "the evil empire".
25 years later, another Republican President says they are absolutely nescesary for "security" and to "support the troops". So how come if I say that the US is now the focus of evil in the modern world or an evil empire, I get modded as "Flamebait" or "Troll"?
In a nation ruled by the politics of fear, this is not surprising. Look at who stands to benefit from this:
Will you be safer from an "terrorist" attack? Nope, this may even make it easier by creating a false sense of security.
Will it make it easier to catch terrorists? The CIA and the FBI seemed to have all sorts of information on 19 folks travelling on their own identities 4 years ago but couldn't figure it out. This won't change because of a shiny new card.
Will it be easier for large corporations to use information to better target their goods, prevent labour from effectively organizing and get into the "new" business of selling personal data? Yep.
You guys once had a great country. It is very sad to see it sliding into corporatism and facism.
Frankly, the billions spent on the card would be better spent on intelligence gathering and disemination. Now THAT would provide protection to the US. Unfortunately, it wouldn't provide a central information database for corporate America.
Now which way do you think the vote will go?
Because, despite your mis-interpretation of "survival of the fittest", that kind of behaviour is actually quite detrimental to passing on genes than altruism and cooperation. It is not "survival of the fittest" but rather survival of those organisms more able to adapt to change in the environment.
You are far more likey to have food, shelter, and safety if you cooperate with your neighbours and kin than if you bully them or kill them. It may seem to work in the short term, but eventually the social system breaks down and these genes do not survive - you are not able to reproduce or protect the children you do create (or the children of your kins). Check out The Evolution of Cooperation. Paul Tobin has a good summary here with a very good summary. This is also a tenant of Game Theory as well.
No, despite your attempts to argue from fear and ignorance, living the "survival of the fittest" that you describe is not how evolution works and is actually not the best strategy for survival of the genes - cooperation, altruism and acting in a moral and ethic manner are. That is why most people are genuinely good and why, despite our incredible numbers on the earth, we AREN'T killing and raping each other on a daily basis.
Acting that way is natural and I don't need a "God" to give me morality or force me to obey rules on the threat of eternal torture. I can just act they way I know from millions of years of biological evolution, is the "right" way.
Or go back to the MacDonell Douglas Delta Clipper. it actually had a prototype that flew. Easily fixed by the looks of it.
Why are we here?
To survive long enough to reproduce and perpetuate our genes. No other reason. No reason needed. We just 'are'.
Why is there suffering and evil?
Well suffering is simply the imbalance in nature when one species grows too large for the environment is is in. Cold, but that's the way it is.
As for 'evil', well I'm not sure that exists in the sense you think. 'Evil' behaviour is the result of the suffering mentioned above. Cold, but that's the way it is.
Does that mean we do nothing about these things? No, we fight to alleviate them because the removal of 'suffering' is the best way to ensure that your offspring or your genes (in relatives or other kin) are propogated to the future. Cooperation and altruism are the best survival strategy in evolution (balanced with some degree of strength and agression). This helps get rid of 'evil' as well.
Of course if your are thinking about suffering and evil in the Bible sense, then its obvious - God created it all. All suffering and evil are the creation of God, according to the Bible.
And considering this, it is no surprise that more suffering and evil have occurred because of religion (especially Christianity orver the past 1700 to 2000 years) than any thing science could dream up.
So to alleviate suffering and evil, we get rid of God and religion.
Oh man, that sounds wonderful...
Ahem
Here is the definite web repository on Evolution. Feel free to look around and refute any of the evidence for evolution they present.
Here's another.
And another.
Not quack pages. Real, serious pages.
Oh, and thousands of Christian clergy also support the truth of evolution.
Now, nobody can take YOU seriously when all you do is claim there is no evidence for evolution (which there is, see above for but a small sampling), talk about the multitudes of evidence for ID, yet fail to show any such evidence?
So let me ask:
What is the process of speciation that ID endorses?
What observed or experimental evidence is there for this?
Where is the evidence for this from other fields, such as physics, chemistry or archeology\anthropology?
Let me know when you can present this.
I am more than willing to change my view of ID if the evidence is presented and can be verified and can hold up to scrutiny. Are you willing to do the same in regard to evolution? Are you prepared to admit that evolution is correct if the evidence is shown? Even if that means the Bible is wrong or it opens the possiblility that God doesn't exist or isn't needed?
Well, that may be so, but I am willing to bet my next paycheque that if you ask the ID crowd which creation myth they mean, it sure as hell won't be the Aboriginal "Dream time" one.
They aren't talking about the classical Greek version...
They aren't talking about anything in the Vedic scriptures or the ancient Persian myths (well, except for cribbing Gilgamesh).
They aren't talkinga bout multiple creators involved in the world.
They aren't saying it was Slartybardfarst or Erich Von Daneken's aliens.
They are talking about a single, monolithic, immortal and everlasting God that created the world through a conscious act of will and still acts in this world to change things. This is the creation myth of Jews, Christians and Muslims. And in the US right now, its not the Jews and Muslims that hold sway...
Google for Michio Kaku. He has lots of good stuff, and a few books on this.
Also, listen to this programme from CBC radio. It combines many worlds idea with Evolution in a very intriguing way.
By the way, there is no "random universe generator". The randomness is at the quantum level - Hisenberg's Uncertainy principle at work.
Facinating stuff really.
Well, even though it is completely irrelavant to evolution, I'll answer anyway.
I don't know. Science doesn't know.
Yet.
There are some hypothesis, but nothing concrete. The investigation continues. There is no evidence to point definitively. The Large Hadron Collider may provide experimental evidence to help clear the air, but we may not know for years, perhaps hundreds of years.
Oh well, the quest continues. Searching for knowledge and ansers is the rasion d'etre of science.
Now, if you have verifiable evidence that points to your "God" then feel free to present it. Please not aht a 2500 year old passage in a book does not constitute evidence of anything (since the two contradiction stories of creation presented in it are BOTH provably incorrect).
Oh and one other thing. If by your question you seem to imply that God created such matter out of nothing.
Let me ask
Where did the God that created said matter come from?
(PS If God can be always existing with no begining, so can the matter)
Ahh but that's the rub...
In science, observed facts (not enough visible matter accounted for in stars, pertubations in the orbit of an outer planet) whose causes are unknown are the basis of these hypothosese. Anything that later turns out to be false, or doesn't fit with this and other observed or experimental data is tossed aside (such as your aether - reasonable when first proposed, but later found out to be untrue).
The more information that is gathered, the clearer the picture (well unless we're talking Quantum mechanics...;-) )
ID on the other hand, takes a conclusion (that the universe was designed and created, infering therefore the existance of a supreme being or Creator) and finds the evidence that only shows this to be true. Ignoring or actively trying to discredit evidence to the contrary. And for ID there is lots of evidence to the contrary.
The conclusion should fit the evidnence, the evidenc should not fit the conclusion.
Beyond that, most of ID can be boiled down to pointing out weaknesses in evolution and saying "So how do you explain that then? Eh? Huh? See, it must be God so ALL of evolution is wrong..."
Hardly scientific. And provably false.
Please try reading Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan
Here are some other links you might be interested in, if you are courageous enough to be openminded:
1.PBS series about Evolution and its basis
2.Talk Origins refuting the whole "eye can't evolve" myth.
3.The Ape-men you requested
4. Observed Speciation
5.A handy FAQ for all those other silly assertions you make over and over again.
My goodness, if you think human resistance to disease and bacterium restistance to anti-biotics are the same, then you are truly need an education.
Bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics because of two independant, yet interrelated things. First, some bacteria, through random mutations, develop the trait that makes anti-biotics inneffective on them. Now, this trait, as long as it doesn't prevent the bacteria from reproducing, will remain dormant. The numbers of this bacteria will remain small, perhaps miniscule, because of the vast numbers of "normal" bacteria. The trait may or may not get passed on. Now, when anti-biotics are miss-used, those bacteria without the mutation are wiped out. Only those with the mutation, however small, survive and reproduce. With no other normal bacteria to compete with, this mutant reproduces at will and becomes dominant. Suddenly there are strains of bacteria for which anti-biotics are useless. And if this doesn't happen, the species goe extinct.
That, my friend, is the process of evolution. It works at the microscopic and macroscopic levels (otherwise you might be a homo erectus rather than a neanderthal). This example is somewhat simplistic but you see the elegance process. Random mutation+change in the environment will stir evolution - only those able to adapt to the new environment will survive to reproduce and thus propgate the mutant genes. After a few million years, you fit your environment so perfectly, you'd swear the environment was designed for you...;-)
I guess it would be easier for you to believe that, wouldn't it. I go where the evidence takes me. I don't need faith to believe "we came from dust and gravity" because that is where the evidence points. There is no evidence for God. I'm not "mad at God"...I can't be mad at something that, as far as I am concerned, doesn't exist. I am "one of those atheists" who doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence. I believe in cooperation, altruism and the ethics and philosophy that spring from them because it has been shown to provide an evolutionary advantage and is thus, the best survival strategy. Doing what I want want without regard fo the conse
Please provide a definition of the terms so we may design this experiment:
Define this "God" that is to be proved or disproved. What do you mean "God"? What are the charateristics of this entity? Describe it's abilities.
This is one of the biggest problems with "God"...ask 50 people to define "God" you get 50 answers.
I think its pretty easy to show that the "God" as depicted in the book commonly know as "The Bible" is not real, as the book itself is full of cntradictions, errors and outright falacies.
So feel free to define what you mean by "God" and we can go forward with an experiment.
Of course, I might be the Devil trying to lead you astray. Or God himself try to test you.
Be careful.
You miss the point.
Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense - plenty of evidence from multiple disciplines that support it. Observable evidence and experimental evidence. Evolution is a fact. It is observable. It is falsifiable. It is real and factual. Think "Theory of Gravity" - gravity can be observed and measured. It is real. It is a fact. How gravity works may be up for discussion but Gravity fact.
ID is not a "theory" in this same sense. There is no evidence supporting it. It is an idea. A great deal of available observations and experimental evidence actually contradict ID. It is a "theory" in a sense of the dictionary - "I think it works like this" without supporting evidence.
In this sense school boards in Kansas are wrong. They are not the same, they are not even in the same league.
There is no evidence for the "truth" of Christianity. If you have some I'd be happy to see it (NOTE: The Bible is a book written by Middle Eastern Mystics 2500 to 1700 years ago. It is evidence of nothing more than the ability to write and bind books during this time period). But that is beside the point.
ID is not science. It is a naked attempt by certain fundementalist Christians to push their beliefs on everyone. 19 years ago it was called "Young Earth" and before that simply Creationism - the belief that the book of Genesis is true and that we were created by "God". There are about 3 to 4 Billion people on this planet that do not subscribe to that myth.
If you wish to teach ID in Philosophy, Religion, Myth and Folklore or other similar courses, knock yourself out. But it is not science and not on par with evolution and should not be taught as such in a science class.
Your premise is based on the assumption that there is only one universe. Had things turned out different in this one then they'd be, well, different. And a differnt version of us would be wondering that it must be designed, since "we" fit "perfectly" into that slightly different universe. The universe was not designed to fit us, we evloved the way we are because the universe is the way it is. No other reason.
Qunatum theory and other discipline in physics postulate that there may be an infinite number of universes that come into existance. Our universe is not impossible, just improbable. But when you have an infinite number of universes coming into existance, then one like ours it is going to happen. And here we are.
There are probably universe with no life. Or with nothing by helium. or with totally differnt life. Universes that lasted seconds and ones that lasted billions of years.
The universe wasn't fine tuned for us, we were fine tuned (via evolution) for it. if it had been different so would we, and we'd be wondering the same thing.
Nope, you are wrong.
Atheists generally do not believe in God because there is no evidence to support the assertion. Some don't believe because it never occured to them the need for such a construct.
"There is a God" is not the default condition that atheists must prove wrong. It is up to the theists to prove that such a thing as God exists.
The burden of proof is always on those making the fantastic assertion. Blair Scott of the American Athiests has a good answer on his page. The site is quite informative.
He has a great analogy there which I will borrow to explain:
If I tell you I have a poodle at my house. You will believe me. Why? Well, you know poodles exist and you have observed them. Or you have other evidence of the existance of poodles like pictures and foot prints, even if you havn't observed them.
Now if I tell you that I have a purple poodle that can fly and predict next week's lottery numbers, will you believe me? I hope not. In this case, I had better come up with some pretty compelling evidence. But if I don't and tell you you must believe me on faith, is it up to the anti-poodlist to prove that the dog doesn't exist? Is it reasonable to take the default stand that this creature exists until proven otherwise?
Nope.
You don't beleive in the poodle because there is no evidence, not becasue you can prove to yourself that it doesn't exist. You do need to "prove" anything.
In case you missed it,dog==god, anti-poodleist==athiest.
I'll stop being an atheist when theists can prove that God exists. I'm not picky. Bible God, Vishnu, Great Spirit, Loki, Venus...any old God will do.
Well, this is the whole arguement. What is your point? Evolution has a great deal of observed evidence on how this happened over billions of years. You think it looks designed, but provide no evidence for a designer. Ironically, you think that way because humans evolved tha ability to recognize patterns as a survival technique. Sometimes they see patterns where none exist (think "Backward masking" on records...). Creationist have an idea without supporting evidence.
I suggest next time you are sick, that you go to a hospital in Montreal. You will experience mutation first hand by the name of C. defacile, a bacterium that has mutated to become anti-boitic resistant. This has happened within the last 80 years. That's about as closed to observed as one can get. All the others can be see in the fossil record. For more info check here
or here for the debunking of the other miss-information in this one.
Ah yes the old "God of the Gaps" argument. Seems no matter how many times transitional fossils are found, creationist always revert to the "what about the transition between those?" recursive argument. Like this:
1980: Early Fossil ----->Transitional -------> Later Fossil
What about between the first and the transition?
1990: Early Fossil ---> Trans 1 ----> Trans2 -----> Later Fossil
What about between trans1 and trans2?
Thanks to Calculus, this arguement can go on forever. God is always in the gaps, not matter how small the gaps are. It still isn't evidence.
Scientific "theory" vs dictionary meaning of "theory"
/., let alone just sit in your chair to do it. Science call s these facts "theories" because science and scientist do not have the hubris to think they have the final answer. They realize that new, better theories may come along and supplant the old ones, that better observations or new experimental facts may cause the theory to be changed or "tweaked" to better explain things.
In science, nothing becomes a theory until it has a mountain of evidence, both observable and experimental back it up. Not until predicted events or phenomena are actually observed in nature, following the predicted pattern. Other scientific "theories" wtih equal and at time less evidence than Evolution: Gravity, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics. If any of these were not "true" or were less than "facts" you could not have entered your miss-informed post via the internet to
The dictionary definition of "theory" you seem to be talking about, is called a hypothesis in science. It may be an intriguing idea but does not yet have any or enough supporting evidence. All theories were once hypothesese. Newtonian physics was the theory when relativity was the hypothesis, for example, but is now well proven. Something else may come along to change even this (M-theory or String Theory, for instance). All that is required is evidence and proof.
ID and creationism are wrong because they lack any evidence and proof. They do not use the scientific method and assume a conclusion and look for evidence to support it rather than observing and experimenting and drawing the conclusions from that - Go where the evidence takes you, even if you don't like where that is.
Therefore, ID and creation ism are not science and should not be taught in a science classroom. If the evidence ever appears that will change.
The ACLU is right. By teaching ID as fact it is not only bad science, but an endorsment of a particular religion, since not all religions support an creation myth as depicted in ID.