//You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well.//
Then it's not faith. Faith is beliefs like "Jesus was the son of God who died for our sins". This isn't an observation, it's a belief in a contention without proof or reason --> faith.
>>You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well.>Finally, I think you will find that an atheist, at least originally, was by definition one who believes there is NO god.
How would we know that? Where was it "orginally" defined? But I can tell you that as far back as the Atheistic Greek Atomist School of Philosophy did not deny the possible existence of gods but did deny their permanence and immortality. (The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion)
In comprehensive dictionaries I find both the weak and strong definitions of atheism. Regardless, it has been defined as the lack of theism for all intents and purposes by more comprehensive definitions and by thinkers with wider views.
Nonetheless, the assertion that atheist have just as much faith as theist is a very tired argument and demonstrates a narrow few of what an atheist is. It's a poor attempt to shift the burden of proof and to justify an irrational belief (faith).
I think you're defining "faith" a little too loosely. Faith is belief without reason, or devotion to a cause or plan. With science, in particular, demand for emperical proof is directly opposed to faith. Your example about not questioning concepts but relying on the word of others is a strawman. When we "believe" scientific theory, we aren't believing in a de facto truth. A scientific theory is merely an explanation of fact. For example, the laws of planetary motion is a theory that explains the facts surrounding the orbits and motions of planets. So, we accept scientific theory as long as the theory explains the facts, the facts are the reason we belief the theory, so it *can't* be faith by definition. There is emperical evidence that support the theory.
And I take exception to your assertion that atheists are "no less guided by faith". This is ignorance of what an atheist is. Simply, an atheist is one who merely LACKS a god-belief. There is nothing more or less to it. So, in other words you can't generalize atheist as holding some beliefs because atheism is the LACK of one particular belief. How can that be faith?
>>When Charles Darwin originally described evolution he mentioned things like flightless birds. Sounds to me like that's less complicated than the flighted birds which they are believed to have descended from.
Actually, I believe that flightless birds are caught in that stage between not having wings and having wings for flight that every bird original came from.
No offense, but your questions represent a misunderstanding in how evolution is understood to work.
Let me address a few of your questions/points.
[i]1. how many generations are required? 1000? 500000? well we can measure that through fossils, if it took 200M years for X to appear then its the last known old version to when the new version appear divide by lifecycle.[/i]
There is no "old" or "new" version. Species is simply a snapshot of the current state of biology, in a few years there will be varying differences in genetics. What happens is that every little change in allele adds up, over time, to new attributes and differing genetic makeup. When those differences are enough to name a new species, then we say speciation has occured.
[i]2. So lets copy that? get some worms or ants and add some gamma rays or something, see if after 10 years or 50000 generations we can get someone NEW genetically, not just a new version based on what genetics were there any way.[/i]
You wouldn't need to add gamma rays or any radiation. When DNA is copied many times information gets misplaced. What happens is that in DNA thare are start and stop markers that segment different traits, during copying those start and stop makers can get distorted and mutations can occur because start and stop markers will get inserted to make new traits. This is the very basis of genetic evolution. Those mutuations that provide for the survival and succesful reproduction of a species get passed on the next generation and so on and so forth. That's why speciation can take so long to occur.
[i]3. When the amount of chromosones actually change from say 54 to 52 and it starts a new species, show me that.[/i]
Chromosomes don't determine a species or evolution. Evolution is the change in frequency of allele. Chromosomes merely carry DNA, what mattes in speciation and evolution is the actual information in DNA, not the chromosomes that carry the information.
[i]3. Or find a loophole/backdoor to trigger a successfull MUTATION/EVOLUTION.[/i]
Selective breeding.
[i]4. Judging fossils shows you most new species virtually appeared instantly, there was no general progression, its like BOOM magic over 10-50M years there are 10000s of new animals.[/i]
Yes, there are periods in the fossil record where it seems speciation occured rapidly, but there is also plenty of fossils that follow a slow progression to the current species that is alive. The hominid fossils are a good example of this. The hominids have arisen after the last known instance of Punctuated Equalibria and we can clearly see a progression and branching of different hominids along the course of thousands of years.
[i]5. Does an animals environment during its young years determin how it changes? or during gestation?[/i]
You mean how it changes genetically in a way that could lead to mutation?? I don't think your question is coherent.
[i]6. Was it really only the earths magnetic field changing and causing 10x more cosmic rays to hit earth that really spawned bizare creatures, ie u nlocked new 'options' that already existed in the DNA? or did it actually MAKE new DNA? or is it the RNA which really decides which parts of the DNA to change or use?[/i]
I have no idea what you are referring too. Radiation can cause mutation in cell reproduction and can cause mutation, but that's not necessarily how genetic mutations that lead to emergent traits come about. But I can't say for sure. I've never heard read or heardd anything about this in any of my science education.
Memetics was never a theory that the same ideas that drive genetic traits also drive ideas. The guy who coined the term, Richard Dawkins, has always maintained that a Meme is [i]analogous[/i] to a gene. Memetics is more of theory that evolutionary principles also drive culture like it does genetics. Memetics is merely a way to talk about cutural evolution in an analogy to biological evolution. It's neither bogus nor outdated.
More information here: http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/overview.html
The company I work for has been using SecureID cards for years, the battery lasts around 5-6 years. AOL would probably want to send users a new card every 4-5 years.
A well designed tube amp (like a Fender) shouldn't fry tubes unless there is something wrong with the amp. Have you biased the tubes correctly? Have you had the amp checked out by an experienced tech?
I've owned many different tube amps over the years and I've gigged them heavily, I've never had one fry tubes due to overheating. Now, I know some of the bigger tube bass amps need some cooling like those Mesa Boogie 200+ watt jobs, but a Twin Reverb shouldn't get hot enough to fry tubes unless it's biased too hot.
Actually, I thought my cable modem was much easier to install in Mandrake 7.X, than Windows. It was as simple as clicking the DHCP button in Linuxconf and rebooting.
Windows requires you to "insert Windows CDROM" and bind TCP/IP to your NIC.
Slashdot Mirror
//You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well.//
Then it's not faith. Faith is beliefs like "Jesus was the son of God who died for our sins". This isn't an observation, it's a belief in a contention without proof or reason --> faith.
>>You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well. faith.
>>You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well.>Finally, I think you will find that an atheist, at least originally, was by definition one who believes there is NO god.
How would we know that? Where was it "orginally" defined? But I can tell you that as far back as the Atheistic Greek Atomist School of Philosophy did not deny the possible existence of gods but did deny their permanence and immortality. (The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion)
In comprehensive dictionaries I find both the weak and strong definitions of atheism. Regardless, it has been defined as the lack of theism for all intents and purposes by more comprehensive definitions and by thinkers with wider views.
Nonetheless, the assertion that atheist have just as much faith as theist is a very tired argument and demonstrates a narrow few of what an atheist is. It's a poor attempt to shift the burden of proof and to justify an irrational belief (faith).
I think you're defining "faith" a little too loosely. Faith is belief without reason, or devotion to a cause or plan. With science, in particular, demand for emperical proof is directly opposed to faith. Your example about not questioning concepts but relying on the word of others is a strawman. When we "believe" scientific theory, we aren't believing in a de facto truth. A scientific theory is merely an explanation of fact. For example, the laws of planetary motion is a theory that explains the facts surrounding the orbits and motions of planets. So, we accept scientific theory as long as the theory explains the facts, the facts are the reason we belief the theory, so it *can't* be faith by definition. There is emperical evidence that support the theory.
And I take exception to your assertion that atheists are "no less guided by faith". This is ignorance of what an atheist is. Simply, an atheist is one who merely LACKS a god-belief. There is nothing more or less to it. So, in other words you can't generalize atheist as holding some beliefs because atheism is the LACK of one particular belief. How can that be faith?
>>When Charles Darwin originally described evolution he mentioned things like flightless birds. Sounds to me like that's less complicated than the flighted birds which they are believed to have descended from.
Actually, I believe that flightless birds are caught in that stage between not having wings and having wings for flight that every bird original came from.
Proof is for mathematics.
No offense, but your questions represent a misunderstanding in how evolution is understood to work.
Let me address a few of your questions/points.
[i]1. how many generations are required? 1000? 500000? well we can measure that through fossils, if it took 200M years for X to appear then its the last known old version to when the new version appear divide by lifecycle.[/i]
There is no "old" or "new" version. Species is simply a snapshot of the current state of biology, in a few years there will be varying differences in genetics. What happens is that every little change in allele adds up, over time, to new attributes and differing genetic makeup. When those differences are enough to name a new species, then we say speciation has occured.
[i]2. So lets copy that? get some worms or ants and add some gamma rays or something, see if after 10 years or 50000 generations we can get someone NEW genetically, not just a new version based on what genetics were there any way.[/i]
You wouldn't need to add gamma rays or any radiation. When DNA is copied many times information gets misplaced. What happens is that in DNA thare are start and stop markers that segment different traits, during copying those start and stop makers can get distorted and mutations can occur because start and stop markers will get inserted to make new traits. This is the very basis of genetic evolution. Those mutuations that provide for the survival and succesful reproduction of a species get passed on the next generation and so on and so forth. That's why speciation can take so long to occur.
[i]3. When the amount of chromosones actually change from say 54 to 52 and it starts a new species, show me that.[/i]
Chromosomes don't determine a species or evolution. Evolution is the change in frequency of allele. Chromosomes merely carry DNA, what mattes in speciation and evolution is the actual information in DNA, not the chromosomes that carry the information.
[i]3. Or find a loophole/backdoor to trigger a successfull MUTATION/EVOLUTION.[/i]
Selective breeding.
[i]4. Judging fossils shows you most new species virtually appeared instantly, there was no general progression, its like BOOM magic over 10-50M years there are 10000s of new animals.[/i]
Yes, there are periods in the fossil record where it seems speciation occured rapidly, but there is also plenty of fossils that follow a slow progression to the current species that is alive. The hominid fossils are a good example of this. The hominids have arisen after the last known instance of Punctuated Equalibria and we can clearly see a progression and branching of different hominids along the course of thousands of years.
[i]5. Does an animals environment during its young years determin how it changes? or during gestation?[/i]
You mean how it changes genetically in a way that could lead to mutation?? I don't think your question is coherent.
[i]6. Was it really only the earths magnetic field changing and causing 10x more cosmic rays to hit earth that really spawned bizare creatures, ie u nlocked new 'options' that already existed in the DNA? or did it actually MAKE new DNA? or is it the RNA which really decides which parts of the DNA to change or use?[/i]
I have no idea what you are referring too. Radiation can cause mutation in cell reproduction and can cause mutation, but that's not necessarily how genetic mutations that lead to emergent traits come about. But I can't say for sure. I've never heard read or heardd anything about this in any of my science education.
Memetics was never a theory that the same ideas that drive genetic traits also drive ideas. The guy who coined the term, Richard Dawkins, has always maintained that a Meme is [i]analogous[/i] to a gene. Memetics is more of theory that evolutionary principles also drive culture like it does genetics. Memetics is merely a way to talk about cutural evolution in an analogy to biological evolution. It's neither bogus nor outdated.
More information here:
http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/overview.html
The company I work for has been using SecureID cards for years, the battery lasts around 5-6 years. AOL would probably want to send users a new card every 4-5 years.
Hearing is one thing, but for a musician, FEEL is something else.
A well designed tube amp (like a Fender) shouldn't fry tubes unless there is something wrong with the amp. Have you biased the tubes correctly? Have you had the amp checked out by an experienced tech?
I've owned many different tube amps over the years and I've gigged them heavily, I've never had one fry tubes due to overheating. Now, I know some of the bigger tube bass amps need some cooling like those Mesa Boogie 200+ watt jobs, but a Twin Reverb shouldn't get hot enough to fry tubes unless it's biased too hot.
I used to sell them at the camera store I used to work at. They have been out for awhile and they were never more expensive than $450
uhh....it took over 4000 years to put man on the moon.
I think that fact is highly unlikely. I would believe the number to be more like 30-35%, if even that.
Even better. :=>
Actually, I thought my cable modem was much easier to install in Mandrake 7.X, than Windows. It was as simple as clicking the DHCP button in Linuxconf and rebooting.
Windows requires you to "insert Windows CDROM" and bind TCP/IP to your NIC.
So does this mean we'll have linux warez and serialz sites?
I really can't see myself paying $199 for CorelDRAW, if it was priced under $100 then maybe I would.
I know this is off-topic but has Denebe closed it's doors? Their website seems to be down.
yes, it will.
this is from the feature list:
Easy setup and configuration for sending and receiving IM's to AIM and ICQ
Find or add Jabber, AIM* and ICQ* users to your friends list
It doesn't cost anywhere near "several hundred thousand dollars" to make a record. Didn't Nirvana make their "Bleach" album for $500?
I have been making, recording and selling music for years. It is not that expensive. I give alot of it away too.
>I am not here to flame up a distro-based >religious war, but I really wonder how being >late all the time can be considered as >an "elegant" trait ?
Haven't you ever heard the phrase "fashionably late"? Well, that's how Debian is. Late, but always classy and elegant.
hmmmmm.....what?
I want a spellchecker too. I will admit my typing is very bad.
It would be nice if the link worked.
I don't think any software can make up for bad typing :)
I haven't used a wrod processor in 3 years, PICO and VI can handle anybody's text needs.