[A] final-year student who expects next year to make $2 to $4 a day hawking credit cards, was dejected.
If he is exercising independent business judgement while selling those credit cards, he may be getting a better education than any that one can get in any school.
No one on slashdot mentioned Creationism except for those ridiculing it right out of the gate.
Creationsim gets that sort of treatment here because it claims to be scientific while having no real scientific merit. It is like the king with no clothes.
I'm just asking for a single dinosaur or darwin story to be posted here without someone calling my religion, or any other, retarded because it might be counter to their belief system.
Yes, some people think that creationism is an essential part of a belief in God, so while they may reject creationism because of its lack of scientific merit, they may feel that they have to reject religion and God's existence as well. That would not happen if they had any sense of theology, and were able to accept God as the creator, while also seeking to understand astronomy and evolution.
By the way, I really do mean it when I asked you show me any real evidence you have that Darwin was wrong. I searched hard and have found nothing. NOTHING!!!!!!
I base mine on a compelling amount of evidence. What is your evidence?
If you have fact-based, non-sectarian evidence that Darwinian evolution is wrong, I would very much like to see it. Years ago, I was a creationist. However, on my own investigation, I concluded that none of the "facts" I read before (from ICR and others) that supported that were valid. None. Ironically, that helped me understand that Bible better and strengthened my faith.
Thank you for raising that up. I too hope to see the science coverage on Slashdot to at least reach the standard that its reporting on the Linux kernel or the GPL sets.
I like volatility. It is is a good thing when one is thinking things through.
I support creationism, but not as a crutch. Surprisingly, I found that moving away from creationism, understanding and accepting Darwinian evolution (macro- and micro-) actually strengthened my belief that God is the creator; I see creation in more of a theological light now, rather than a physical/scientific light. Creation has more to do with love than physical assembly.
I'm worried the NYT report on this program will help some members of Al-Qaeda avoid capture. I wish they considered this, but I guess they just don't care.
With all due respect to Dapper (and a well-deserved one, I'm running it right now and it works fantastically), how is this news? So it will be out in a week - it was known.
You must be new to Slashdot. That's pretty much how it got started in the first place.
Linus long been called a "Benevolent Dictator for Life". I guess this supports the idea that, with all dictatorships, you get more that what you bargained for.
Nobody has ever done an experiment today, that such things really happen. Parents pass on traits to their children, and siblings and cousins share many traits that non-siblings. Tracing how macroevolution occurred is based on this. In the case of fish, we share more traits them than with insects, so the pattern is clear.
The ID camp can just point out that the good, workable aspects of a design gets re-used, just as we do in human designs. (Put an automobile analogy here):-) !!
Sometimes something like this happens, i.e. how birds, bats, and insects independently developed wings. Sure their wings are very different, and its clear that bats didn't evolve from birds or insects, but wings are a "good design."
Can you give a definition of what you mean by this term and an example of its occurrence that has been experimentally verified?
By macroevolution, I mean changes that occur between species rather than within species. An example is some primates losing tails, with traces remaining, even in humans. A species getting taller or fatter over time would be an example of microevolution, not macroevolution. A detailed comparison between creatures can show where macroevolution has occurred. Comparing the compound eyes in insects to the kind of eyes that fish, reptiles, and mammals have is enough to show that insects branched off from fish much earlier than reptiles or mammals. (Their lack of vertabrae makes this clear too, of course.) Dissection, fossils, and examining ebroyos are all experimental tools. One very important thing to look out for is correlation; one discovery or experiment that points to an evolutionary occurance is just fodder for skeptics, but when many different experiments support it, the conclusion becomes clear.
Macroevolution is, and probably always will be, the "theory" part of the "theory of evolution". That macroevolution occurred is a factual part of evolution. The mechanism behind it is theory, and its what is meant by the "Theory of Evolution", but its occurrence is known fact.
And please, don't make assumptions about how much I do or don't understand.
Didn't you express that you understand microevolution, and that you don't understand macroevolution? That's ok; its not the easiest science to come to grips with. It took me years to pull out of creationism and study evolution. Its worth studying though, and it'll aid your understanding of astronomy, biology, and geology, because they all tie together.
Just remember that you can't learn science through creationism.
I can vouch that the general concept of macroevolution is fundamentally flawed at most every level. But that's like declaring a problem without offering a fix...
Please understand that macroevolution is fact, no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s about it. If you don't understand it, don't say that its flawed or wrong or unbiblical or whatever; just say that you don't understand it yet.
Slashdot Mirror
If he is exercising independent business judgement while selling those credit cards, he may be getting a better education than any that one can get in any school.
Did Linus ask for another raise?
Why do you equate creationism with Chritianity; Christianity is all about Jesus; there's no "gospel" of Adam and Eve.
Creationsim gets that sort of treatment here because it claims to be scientific while having no real scientific merit. It is like the king with no clothes.
I'm just asking for a single dinosaur or darwin story to be posted here without someone calling my religion, or any other, retarded because it might be counter to their belief system.
Yes, some people think that creationism is an essential part of a belief in God, so while they may reject creationism because of its lack of scientific merit, they may feel that they have to reject religion and God's existence as well. That would not happen if they had any sense of theology, and were able to accept God as the creator, while also seeking to understand astronomy and evolution.
That is totally absurd and untrue.
lack of lunar dust
That involves a false "fact" often quoted by creationists. A simple google search will show the facts behind this urban legend.
life breaks the second law of thermodynamics
This is a creationist / "intelligent design" fact, but is generally not well accepted, and is highly disputed.
the Big Bang theory breaks the first law of thermodynamics
That's not evidence for creationism. It just means that the "Big Bang" theory is not complete.
By the way, I really do mean it when I asked you show me any real evidence you have that Darwin was wrong. I searched hard and have found nothing. NOTHING!!!!!!
If you have fact-based, non-sectarian evidence that Darwinian evolution is wrong, I would very much like to see it. Years ago, I was a creationist. However, on my own investigation, I concluded that none of the "facts" I read before (from ICR and others) that supported that were valid. None. Ironically, that helped me understand that Bible better and strengthened my faith.
play Minions of Mirth while you wait for Bioware to get their Mac and Linux act together.
Well, moreso a simplistic and naive interpretation of Genesis.
just beowulf 100 PS3s together, that should be able to pull it off
That's not how to say it. You are supposed to say "Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?"
Thank you for raising that up. I too hope to see the science coverage on Slashdot to at least reach the standard that its reporting on the Linux kernel or the GPL sets.
By destroying stuff, they think that they're helping God in creation by removing "evil" things and people that they believe God does not love.
I suppose I'm volatile. I may be wrong.
I like volatility. It is is a good thing when one is thinking things through.
I support creationism, but not as a crutch.
Surprisingly, I found that moving away from creationism, understanding and accepting Darwinian evolution (macro- and micro-) actually strengthened my belief that God is the creator; I see creation in more of a theological light now, rather than a physical/scientific light. Creation has more to do with love than physical assembly.
I think that's great; between the X-Prize and this, she spends her money on things that are worthwhile.
I thought Israel was the 51st state?
Please don't confuse Israel or Canada with Iraq.
I have to hand it to you; that's one insightful post. It helps me frame the issue better.
I'm worried the NYT report on this program will help some members of Al-Qaeda avoid capture. I wish they considered this, but I guess they just don't care.
is clearly written just to show what the "other side" says. There is not nearly enough information in it to draw any conclusions about global warming.
You must be new to Slashdot. That's pretty much how it got started in the first place.
Linus long been called a "Benevolent Dictator for Life". I guess this supports the idea that, with all dictatorships, you get more that what you bargained for.
Parents pass on traits to their children, and siblings and cousins share many traits that non-siblings. Tracing how macroevolution occurred is based on this. In the case of fish, we share more traits them than with insects, so the pattern is clear.
The ID camp can just point out that the good, workable aspects of a design gets re-used, just as we do in human designs. (Put an automobile analogy here) :-) !!
Sometimes something like this happens, i.e. how birds, bats, and insects independently developed wings. Sure their wings are very different, and its clear that bats didn't evolve from birds or insects, but wings are a "good design."
By macroevolution, I mean changes that occur between species rather than within species. An example is some primates losing tails, with traces remaining, even in humans. A species getting taller or fatter over time would be an example of microevolution, not macroevolution. A detailed comparison between creatures can show where macroevolution has occurred. Comparing the compound eyes in insects to the kind of eyes that fish, reptiles, and mammals have is enough to show that insects branched off from fish much earlier than reptiles or mammals. (Their lack of vertabrae makes this clear too, of course.) Dissection, fossils, and examining ebroyos are all experimental tools. One very important thing to look out for is correlation; one discovery or experiment that points to an evolutionary occurance is just fodder for skeptics, but when many different experiments support it, the conclusion becomes clear.
Wikipedia describes it here.
You can find web evidence to pore over here.
And please, don't make assumptions about how much I do or don't understand.
Didn't you express that you understand microevolution, and that you don't understand macroevolution? That's ok; its not the easiest science to come to grips with. It took me years to pull out of creationism and study evolution. Its worth studying though, and it'll aid your understanding of astronomy, biology, and geology, because they all tie together.
Just remember that you can't learn science through creationism.
Creationists co-opted the term "Macroevolution". They didn't invent it.
Please understand that macroevolution is fact, no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s about it. If you don't understand it, don't say that its flawed or wrong or unbiblical or whatever; just say that you don't understand it yet.