The translations that the 40% of fundamentalist Americans believe literally. Doesn't really matter which specific translation you refer to in this case, like humanity the Bible has evolved over the years, and also like humanity strict creationists take their current version as the unchanging truth.
1) No, I'm not mixing them up, I understand them both very well... I just believe biochemistry is biochemistry. I find it especially sad that many atheists vehemently object to lumping them together, even if their reasons are mostly to counter fundamentalist arguments against the former. Would it help if I called it "biomolecular evolution"?
2) Clearly your physics teacher never moved beyond Newtonian physics to relativity or quantum mechanics;) (which is another good example of why pretending individual biological theories can stand on their own is wrong, IMO at least...)
Evolution stands independent of the move from non-life to life.
It's about as independent as the big bang theory is to astrophysics, or subatomic particles are to atoms.
In the end abiogenesis and evolution are both just biochemistry, eons of recombining atoms and molecules into more complex and useful forms. The silly names and arbitrary categorization is purely a human artifact of our painfully laborious and fitful efforts to understand them. The only good reason I can see to pretend they are independent is to attempt to find a place to stick God in there, a la Intelligent Design...
My argument was in fact that creationism and evolution are not compatible theories. I also made a statement that 40% of the US population believes in strict creationism, and I found that number alarming (and used it as a statistical data point to counter the OP's very anecdotal "conservatives I know believe in evolution and creationism").
Nowhere did I "dismiss all Christians", in fact I'm not even sure what they should be dismissed from. Jury duty? Survivor? Who's to say they are all Christians anyway? *You* made that up, not me. Maybe they are Fundamentalist Muslims or ultra-Conservative Jews. I suppose I wouldn't want that 40% of the population segment teaching my children's biology class, at least...
All you keep doing is picking at non-issues and adding things that were never said. Which really, is the closest to logic someone arguing for creationism can approach here. Not that you are even making any statements towards the real discussion either way, so I still fail to see your point in this discussion beyond trolling, which is why I will leave you to it, have fun...
I have seen Miracle on 34th Street several times, and it clearly says otherwise. It was written by someone who's name I don't know many years before I was born, so why would I have any reason to doubt it?
It did nothing to refute the actual point, and didn't even correctly represent what I was saying (which is 40% of the US takes Genesis literally, not allegorically, yet doesn't seem willing to admit the inherent contradictions with modern science that a small child would happily point out.
But anyway, thanks for sharing, other than the above you really contributed to the debate!
In college I reproduced an experiment that showed this was possible. Combine a few gases (nitrogen, CO2, methane) with water in an oxygen-free sealed container and expose to electricity with a spark gap, and a few days later you have a variety of amino acids in solution. Others have performed slightly more complex experiments to create nucleotides (the precursors to RNA & DNA).
So I guess this either means that I am officially a God, or it requires a "Supreme Being" to guide it about as much as a baking a decent chocolate cake. I'll take Occam's Razor, at least I can use it to cut the cake...
I've known many republicans in my time, having lived in conservative states, and just about all of them believed in evolution AND creationism (that's correct, they're not mutually exclusive, bible says why and evolution says how).
No, the Bible most clearly says why *and* how. It says God spontaneously created all of the animals and Adam, and then created Eve from Adam's rib - this all about 10000 years ago. *That* is creationism, and a terrifying 40% of the US population still believes that story. Yes, that is "strict creationism", and yes, it really is 40%. Before you think about debating that fact, go look up the statistics yourself.
True evolutionary theory starts with the idea that all life evolved over billions of years, starting with simple inorganic compounds that combined into some of the basic organic building blocks (amino acids, nucleotides, etc).
These theories are so far from compatible with each other a 4 year old can instinctively comprehend the contradiction. Unfortunately, society then spends the next 10 years teaching the child the obvious conclusion is wrong...
In theory, Ray Priest is *wrong*. This isn't like a driver's license privilege. There is a lot of current debate on the issue, but plenty of Constitutional scholars consider the right to travel a basic human right (it is Constitutionally protected domestically within the US borders). The right to travel was specifically mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, and one argument is that it is so fundamental that the Founding Fathers didn't even see it as necessary to add to the Bill of Rights.
Historically the only valid reasons for denying passports were for "national security" or criminal activity of the applicant. Of course in today's climate, "national security" is clearly broad enough to deny a child who sat on his passport. It's amazing how in some ways conventional wisdom of the US government (and its citizens and corporations) has regressed to *pre* revolutionary times.
And if you are *citizen* you have just as much (or more?) right to return the to the country as you do to leave, passport or not. You may have to *prove* you are a citizen, of course, but for most people that is not particularly hard (though it may take some time to get all of the documents sent to you).
Of course, an airline is not the government - they do have the right to refuse travel on their planes, and one of the reasons they require valid passports, etc, is that they don't want to have flown someone to a country that will refuse them entry and somehow be responsible for getting them home.
Drones and automated defenses would probably be the first line of battle. If they can do as good or better job as humans without loss of life, why bother with anything else? The US is already doing this in limited amounts today...
In the end wars are about territory and resources, so eventually it will come down to invading and occupying something of value (planet, moon, space station, whatever). Space battles would just be a necessity to get close enough to the real goal to accomplish that.
True. You would hope, for example, that stealing a Toyota would result in the same *criminal* punishment as stealing a Ferrari (civil damages, on the other hand, could be a different story). But in reality if you look at the judge's comments, that's clearly not how he thought about it, which is wrong...
Yeah, I haven't seen any specifics on what it was that cost them $200k or whether that is totally inflated, I just don't think the measure of his guilt should have anything to do with the size of the company hacked.
On the flip side, I think the judge's comment that "you accessed the very heart of the system of an international business of massive size, so this was not just fiddling about in the business records of some tiny business of no great importance" is even worse. If it's a crime it shouldn't matter who the victim is; if he did $200k worth of damage to a small business that's just as bad (at whatever definition of "bad" you may have).
While that may be true, that doesn't appear to be the judge's rational for convicting the kid.
Why does everyone keep calling him "the kid"? He's 26 years old. Just because he's a student doesn't make him some naive, innocent minor - he clearly knew what he was doing...
By prosecuting the guy all they have done is ensure that in the future people who manage to find these holes will either just exploit them for criminal gain
Or maybe it will make some of those people think twice before they do it in the first place...
Yes, and you are an expert from all of the cop dramas you watch on TV? Or are you an AC because you are actually a master thief giving us your secrets?
Your example is not really relevant, I doubt any college students *mugged* their teachers. And 30 laptops from one imaginary project stolen in short order? Sure it's all speculation, but the security guys had 2 choices: 1) report the thefts and point out the connection that they already knew 2) ignore it because a teacher specializing in social engineering security told them not to harass his students. How do we have any idea what they would have decided if they weren't given prior knowledge? (which was basically my original point)
Of course, if your theory is true that could skew it the other way, which still affects the outcome;)
I assume those students had a list of the exact faculty with said laptops, etc. It's a *bit* more than random theft when you have a coordinated effort to take something *knowing* that you would never be punished for it in the end. Still an interesting study and hopefully provided useful data, but it's still fairly contrived...
...and you should really just RTFA instead of taking the word of a/. summary and your overactive imagination;)
The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
The glaring problem has nothing to do with a four year old kid, and is just plain all about the brain-dead dittoheads pretending one dumb mistake by an elementary school employee implies it is somehow directly the Obama administration's fault (that site linked to in the summary is an ultra-conservative crap tabloid, ugh). And it wasn't even a Federal issue to begin with, it was was a state regulation...
Slashdot Mirror
The translations that the 40% of fundamentalist Americans believe literally. Doesn't really matter which specific translation you refer to in this case, like humanity the Bible has evolved over the years, and also like humanity strict creationists take their current version as the unchanging truth.
1) No, I'm not mixing them up, I understand them both very well... I just believe biochemistry is biochemistry. I find it especially sad that many atheists vehemently object to lumping them together, even if their reasons are mostly to counter fundamentalist arguments against the former. Would it help if I called it "biomolecular evolution"?
2) Clearly your physics teacher never moved beyond Newtonian physics to relativity or quantum mechanics ;) (which is another good example of why pretending individual biological theories can stand on their own is wrong, IMO at least...)
Evolution stands independent of the move from non-life to life.
It's about as independent as the big bang theory is to astrophysics, or subatomic particles are to atoms.
In the end abiogenesis and evolution are both just biochemistry, eons of recombining atoms and molecules into more complex and useful forms. The silly names and arbitrary categorization is purely a human artifact of our painfully laborious and fitful efforts to understand them. The only good reason I can see to pretend they are independent is to attempt to find a place to stick God in there, a la Intelligent Design...
Straw man #2, thanks.
My argument was in fact that creationism and evolution are not compatible theories. I also made a statement that 40% of the US population believes in strict creationism, and I found that number alarming (and used it as a statistical data point to counter the OP's very anecdotal "conservatives I know believe in evolution and creationism").
Nowhere did I "dismiss all Christians", in fact I'm not even sure what they should be dismissed from. Jury duty? Survivor? Who's to say they are all Christians anyway? *You* made that up, not me. Maybe they are Fundamentalist Muslims or ultra-Conservative Jews. I suppose I wouldn't want that 40% of the population segment teaching my children's biology class, at least...
All you keep doing is picking at non-issues and adding things that were never said. Which really, is the closest to logic someone arguing for creationism can approach here. Not that you are even making any statements towards the real discussion either way, so I still fail to see your point in this discussion beyond trolling, which is why I will leave you to it, have fun...
How dare you talk like that about Santa Claus!
I have seen Miracle on 34th Street several times, and it clearly says otherwise. It was written by someone who's name I don't know many years before I was born, so why would I have any reason to doubt it?
And your post was what we call a "straw man".
It did nothing to refute the actual point, and didn't even correctly represent what I was saying (which is 40% of the US takes Genesis literally, not allegorically, yet doesn't seem willing to admit the inherent contradictions with modern science that a small child would happily point out.
But anyway, thanks for sharing, other than the above you really contributed to the debate!
In college I reproduced an experiment that showed this was possible. Combine a few gases (nitrogen, CO2, methane) with water in an oxygen-free sealed container and expose to electricity with a spark gap, and a few days later you have a variety of amino acids in solution. Others have performed slightly more complex experiments to create nucleotides (the precursors to RNA & DNA).
So I guess this either means that I am officially a God, or it requires a "Supreme Being" to guide it about as much as a baking a decent chocolate cake. I'll take Occam's Razor, at least I can use it to cut the cake...
I've known many republicans in my time, having lived in conservative states, and just about all of them believed in evolution AND creationism (that's correct, they're not mutually exclusive, bible says why and evolution says how).
No, the Bible most clearly says why *and* how. It says God spontaneously created all of the animals and Adam, and then created Eve from Adam's rib - this all about 10000 years ago. *That* is creationism, and a terrifying 40% of the US population still believes that story. Yes, that is "strict creationism", and yes, it really is 40%. Before you think about debating that fact, go look up the statistics yourself.
True evolutionary theory starts with the idea that all life evolved over billions of years, starting with simple inorganic compounds that combined into some of the basic organic building blocks (amino acids, nucleotides, etc).
These theories are so far from compatible with each other a 4 year old can instinctively comprehend the contradiction. Unfortunately, society then spends the next 10 years teaching the child the obvious conclusion is wrong...
In theory, Ray Priest is *wrong*. This isn't like a driver's license privilege. There is a lot of current debate on the issue, but plenty of Constitutional scholars consider the right to travel a basic human right (it is Constitutionally protected domestically within the US borders). The right to travel was specifically mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, and one argument is that it is so fundamental that the Founding Fathers didn't even see it as necessary to add to the Bill of Rights.
Historically the only valid reasons for denying passports were for "national security" or criminal activity of the applicant. Of course in today's climate, "national security" is clearly broad enough to deny a child who sat on his passport. It's amazing how in some ways conventional wisdom of the US government (and its citizens and corporations) has regressed to *pre* revolutionary times.
And if you are *citizen* you have just as much (or more?) right to return the to the country as you do to leave, passport or not. You may have to *prove* you are a citizen, of course, but for most people that is not particularly hard (though it may take some time to get all of the documents sent to you).
Of course, an airline is not the government - they do have the right to refuse travel on their planes, and one of the reasons they require valid passports, etc, is that they don't want to have flown someone to a country that will refuse them entry and somehow be responsible for getting them home.
Drones and automated defenses would probably be the first line of battle. If they can do as good or better job as humans without loss of life, why bother with anything else? The US is already doing this in limited amounts today...
In the end wars are about territory and resources, so eventually it will come down to invading and occupying something of value (planet, moon, space station, whatever). Space battles would just be a necessity to get close enough to the real goal to accomplish that.
True. You would hope, for example, that stealing a Toyota would result in the same *criminal* punishment as stealing a Ferrari (civil damages, on the other hand, could be a different story). But in reality if you look at the judge's comments, that's clearly not how he thought about it, which is wrong...
Yeah, I haven't seen any specifics on what it was that cost them $200k or whether that is totally inflated, I just don't think the measure of his guilt should have anything to do with the size of the company hacked.
On the flip side, I think the judge's comment that "you accessed the very heart of the system of an international business of massive size, so this was not just fiddling about in the business records of some tiny business of no great importance" is even worse. If it's a crime it shouldn't matter who the victim is; if he did $200k worth of damage to a small business that's just as bad (at whatever definition of "bad" you may have).
Have to generally agree in this case - I don't see how a jail sentence is going to deter the guy from doing it again any more than a fine would have.
While that may be true, that doesn't appear to be the judge's rational for convicting the kid.
Why does everyone keep calling him "the kid"? He's 26 years old. Just because he's a student doesn't make him some naive, innocent minor - he clearly knew what he was doing...
What does that matter? $200,000 is $200,000, just because the victim "can afford it" doesn't change the crime itself.
By prosecuting the guy all they have done is ensure that in the future people who manage to find these holes will either just exploit them for criminal gain
Or maybe it will make some of those people think twice before they do it in the first place...
Yeah, that's all I was saying... maybe if they called the cops after the first few the next 25+ would have been a bit harder :)
Yes, and you are an expert from all of the cop dramas you watch on TV? Or are you an AC because you are actually a master thief giving us your secrets?
Your example is not really relevant, I doubt any college students *mugged* their teachers. And 30 laptops from one imaginary project stolen in short order? Sure it's all speculation, but the security guys had 2 choices: 1) report the thefts and point out the connection that they already knew 2) ignore it because a teacher specializing in social engineering security told them not to harass his students. How do we have any idea what they would have decided if they weren't given prior knowledge? (which was basically my original point)
Of course, if your theory is true that could skew it the other way, which still affects the outcome ;)
I assume those students had a list of the exact faculty with said laptops, etc. It's a *bit* more than random theft when you have a coordinated effort to take something *knowing* that you would never be punished for it in the end. Still an interesting study and hopefully provided useful data, but it's still fairly contrived...
"The university’s security staff were informed in advance, to make sure that the students involved did not end up in jail."
Physical security is a lot harder to enforce when you tell the physical security not to do their job...
Why do the French *still* underestimate the Germans? You'd think they would eventually learn...
That's the point - start now, and in 30 years you will!
...and you should really just RTFA instead of taking the word of a /. summary and your overactive imagination ;)
The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
The glaring problem has nothing to do with a four year old kid, and is just plain all about the brain-dead dittoheads pretending one dumb mistake by an elementary school employee implies it is somehow directly the Obama administration's fault (that site linked to in the summary is an ultra-conservative crap tabloid, ugh). And it wasn't even a Federal issue to begin with, it was was a state regulation...
What he said. And NSFW. Though not much on Urban Dictionary is.
Juggers jog.
Joggers jog. Juggers bounce.