I'd take that chance any day over paying out rent and not having my money work for me. A house is an investment. Investements sometimes work, sometimes fail. Paying rent each month, when you could have a chance to purchase a home, is just stupid.
Me? I had a chance in 1999 to puchase a 5 bedroom 4,200 sqft. home in Southern California, to live in alone for a while until I find a wife and have children and can "grow" into it, for $380k. Most homes were about $200k back then (by comparison, most homes are $750k in the area now). My family convinced me not to so I didn't. I eventually found myself a wife (no children yet) and took her to see the same house I almost purchase (I would have been the first owner). It was actually on the market and sold for 1.2 million (after 5 years). Ouch!!!
Since then, I racked up over $30 in consumer debt (new truck, school, credit cards mostly) and spent 4 years paying between $1k and $3k/mo. all the while still increasing my consumer debt until I paid overything off. Lots of bad decisions. All the while, my apartment rent increased from $700 in early 2000 until now, my apartment just shot to $1,920/mo for a two bedroom two bath apartment and it is in line with most other apartments.
What's my point? My income is roughly the same today that it has been 3 years ago (20% more). But my costs of living have kept going up. We've come to realize we can't buy a house here so we've started buying houses out of state and renting them out. Pretty soon, we'll be buying our own home and I'll probly find a new trade (I'm a software engineer currently). California is way too expensive.
However, in retrospect, if I had purchased that $380k house in 1999, I would have a period of 12 months in 2001 through most of 2002 where I was unemployed. I may have lost the house. I may have been able to sell it quickly with lots of equity. Who cares? I'd rather put my money into a house that has the potential to be mine over puting $21k/yr. into an apartment that'll never be mine and never score me some tax relief.
In any case, I keep buying 1 new house every year and sometimes two. I have the income currently (I net about $9,500/mo.) so while I have the chance I'll take advantage of it. I think that's more sound than sinking it into one house that is way over inflated. I hate living in California now anyway, too many people and angry drivers on the road.
The point is a house is always a sound investment. If the price drop and so does your job and you take a loss on foreclosing, oh well. Try again in 7 years. Of course, these days, trying to lease an apartment will score you a credit check and might get you rejected but that's another story... otherwise, hand on to it. In calfornia, in 10 years, it'll probly double over what it is today.
In the end, you'll never lose with property if you hang on to it long enough.
Something is only fair use when the **AA's think it is fair. If they keep their crusade up, we won't be able to do anything with music and movies except pay and watch once before we pay again for having completed watching. Go to the Indy's you say. How long before the Indy's have to "abide" by the same forced legislation that the **AA's cram down our throats?
So that's why most lawyers these days don't have a clue what the Constitution is... I see, their too busy playing solitaire and not paying attention. Hmm. like our crap public school system that graduates anyone our legal school do the same... that explains everything.
it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David."
The way I remember the story of David v Goliath is that a little stone flung between the eyes of giant Goliath caused immediate death. What happened next? David used Goliath's own sword to cut off the giant's head then went and killed his brothers.
Me thinks it might be better to side with David, but that's just me. Or, the author picked the wrong analogy.
There's a good chance the the first few people to be succesfully revived will be celebrities. But you're point is well taken, they will be about as overwhealmed in their day as a 1st centry Roman would be overwhealmed if he woke up in current society without a proper incubation period to adjust (the incubation period meaning his whole life from infancy).
I added you as a friend recently because I like your views on copyright and that you are willing to try "different" things and that it actually seems to be working.
The **AA's are blowing everything way too much out of proportion. Obviously, the widespread use of P2P networks and their ease-of-use makes it easy to infringe on their copyrights and violate their traditional distribution monopolies. I might agree something needs to be done about that but not at the price they are making us pay. We aren't their slaves and, for as much as we don't have a "right" to their content, they don't have a "right" to my pocket book. Hampering technological progress might help their short-term earnings, in the long run, it will hurt civilization.
In anycase, I wrote a book that didn't get published because it was on VB6 at a time when the original Beta 2 of.NET was released and the small-time publisher didn't want to take a risk of publishing something nobody had an interest in. Now I have control of it. I've been wanting to update it and release it under my own terms. I've been looking at the Creative Commons copyright terms, where anyone can download, share, and produce the book even for profit without sharing that profit with me and in-turn, offering people an official hardcopy printed book if its that important to them or they can pay for consultation services of related work through me if they so desire.
In the end, I think releasing it directly into the public domain would be a better model. Not sure. But it seems to work for music, I think it can work for published material as well.
We need to move forward. Information is a commodity these days, there are so many willing to share it. There's no reason to lock it up behind closed doors. I have friends that have been hired for their knowledge and when they start work they have to sign papers saying all their knowledge belongs to the company and they can't use it outside of working hourse or for x number of years/months after employment ends. That's rediculous. This whole IP thing is really getting out of hand and mainly, I think it is the **AA's paranoia that is feeding most of it.
I don't think they really care about piracy. They just want absolute control over all distribution both now and in the future. Its only a matter of time before I can produce my own music on my own dime and have to pay the **AA's for their blessing to approve it into any kind of distrobution, whatsover. In that capacity, they receive money no matter their members produce it or not. I don't approve of that. I have no connection with them and I don't need their blessing, thank you very much.
America, the best democracy money can buy.
Hopefuly your approach to music and copynots will catch on and work will for many.
I'll agree with this. When was the last time we said "I invented a new way to subit data through an asynchronous XML stream to the server using Javascript?" Or "look what technique I invented?"...
Myself and just about everyone else I know simply say things to the effect "look what I discovered..." or "I finally discovered how to boost performance of our database by 200% by doing x and y"... or "I finally solved the problem.". "Solved", to a lesser extent, implying discovery and not invention.
However, we might not say "I discovered the IC chip and transister" but "[someone] invented the IC chip" or "[someone] invented the transister". Things like the internet are not discovered, we don't say "DARPA discovered the internet" we say things like "Al Gore invented the Internet".
My point being, when we speak of software solutions we usually use the term "discovered a solution" implying that the solution was always there waiting to be discovered, also implying by "solution" that it isn't an invention, but a discovery.
But in a world where a gene can be patented, I hold little hope that anyone with significant persuasion power to understand. I'm not talking about the masses, because in general, we appear to be relatively powerless. I'm talking about the lobby.
A good "bridge" would be no patents at all. Let the market remain free an unincumbered by artificial monopolies and thought, expression, and further discovery. Isn't that how we got here in the first place? Why do we need patents when we did just fine without them in the first place?
The reason I haven't implemented it, but have thought of it, is because someone has to pay for the bandwidth and if I end up with even 5% of the bandwidth that Slashdot uses, I'd go broke real quick. But, its a great idea and I'd like to see someone front the bill.
The better way to do it is use a special torrent network for storing the information but that in itself has its own technical hurdles to overcome, but shared bandwidth and storage would be the best way to make it work, but that would open it to corruption moreso than a trusted storage point but just gobbles of tainted information.
I think there are two good ways to help mitigate at least the pretexting aspect, if not teh outright insider-fraud aspect: a challenge-response mechanism. When changing my address with my cellphone carrier yesterday, they asked me all kinds of personal information, all of which could be easily located by the determined, and then finally they asked me for two pieces of information that are not readinly available: a pin number that I supposedly specified 6 years ago (and never used since) and the 3 digit number on my credit card that I started the account with. Of course, I didn't know the pin and I don't have that credit card anymore so they were happy with my mother's maiden name (which fortunately, no one else knows due to a series of nuances in my life and, the fact, that, I made one up that is only in my head)... and my social.
That said, if a secret PIN was required before such information can be divuldged, under any circumstance, except a search-warrant, then there wouldn't be such a problem. Perhaps, on certain types of information, such as previous or current phone records, they would actually initiate a phone call a phone number on your record (word, home, cell, other) and when you answer it would have to approve the transaction before it could be divulged.
Of course, the problem is deeper, we probly agreed to allow our information to be shared with any other business even if we opt-out, the data belongs to that company and there must be a million ways to skirt your opt-out option. Of course, the information is naturally, it appears, more easily available to all parties but yourself. Such is life.
A simple challenge responce and authentication-required via some very secret information (such as a PIN) would help a lot. Also, if every made up their mothers maiden name, that would help out, too, since no one else would be able to discover it unless they overheard you speak it in a public place while authenticating for some other reason, for that reason, I rarely make such phone calls in public. But even my vehicle and house can be bugged, so you're really not "safe".
I forgot to say, when it comes to culture, I, by far, prefer working with Microsot programmers (.NET/C++/VB) becuase of their general attitude. In the many places I've worked and consulted, they generally (not as a rule of thumb) want to learn more, be good like that Java guys (there's a weird perception at play here) and are open to new ideas and not generally zealous and anti-linux or anti-oss.
Working with Java people or Linux zealots, on the other hand, is not for the faint of heart. They are so anti-microsoft, anti-capitolist software market, so friggin' self-righteous, and whatnot that its annoying. Since I'm not in this camp, I prefer the more lax Microsoft sheeple-type culture over the annoying and forceful anti-everying-but-what-I-believe-in camp.
If only I can mod you one. I think the main sentiment on/. is simply "Microsoft Sucks,.NET Sucks, Java rocks, Ruby and Python all the way". I make a living in C# development since the earliest of betas. I've only recently startd Java development but after spending years on.NET and still learning things about it, just getting started in Java is a daunting task. In the end, I think they are both serious contenders but Microsoft really has the ease-of-use thing down to an art.
In any case, one isn't better than the other, IMO. Just that whichever you learn, you'll be more productive in, naturally. But as far as the Eclipse v. VS.NET, I think the whole anti-microsoft attitude is detrimental to OSS as a whole. Sure, they only know how to play catchup and follow-the-leader, but in doing so, there's so much they miss and refuse to learn from which can make their own offerings even better.
I say, learn which ever one you want and look for work doing it. Be happy. The happiest programmers I know are the most productive and inspirational. I hate working with unhappy programmers because they are so de-motivating.
The similarities between Java and C# are really only sking deep, regarding syntax. Beyond that, it'll take more than a couple days time to learn and be good and productive in either "environment". I say that because the.NET namespaces and Java package libraries are not a walk in the park to learn and become proficient in. After 5 years working with.NET (since the earliest of betas) I'm still learning things about the.NET framework (and C#) and I'm very good at what I do. Not a beginner, not a slacker, and definately understand architecture and design.
Try learning C++. You can learn the syntax in a couple days, but try becoming good at C++ development and it'll take a bit longer than a few days, months at least. Same with Perl and Python. Everyones mileage varies, but I have difficulty with those languages, but then, they serve a different need than the ones I get paid to work on for a living. Perhaps its my motivation to care that causes the difficulty.
What's true, is that, once you've understood the basics, principles, design and architecture, it shouldn't be too difficult to apply the knowledge in another language, but, in reality, doesn't always work out that way. You still have to learn the intricacies of a platform (.NET/Java/Rails/Etc.) before you can really *do things right*. It takes time. I've only recently started Java programming. I do not find in inherantly different than.NET, but it is drasitically different. Having to forget all the things that.NET makes easy and learn the Java way is driving me bonkers. Java is huge, and whenever I stumble on one way to do something 10 more better ways open up and some worse. There are so many reivent-the-wheel projects in Java that things really do take time to learn.
Thus, only the syntax will take a few days to learn well. The specific traits and capabilities of the platform/language take months or even years to truly learn and master.
For every proof that this happens, there's also research that discounts it. The fact is, the we can't even agree on what our research suggests. In any case, you certainly are convinced its a fact. I've already admitted I believe in specie adaptation. But I just don't think the evidence is solid enough for me to believe that we came from an ape or a worm. Again, that's where I refer to fossil records. They are only partial story and not a full record of lineage.
A mosquito living near a nuclear powerplant or chemical factory might grow a 6th pair of wings and 2 additional legs and another eye. We might even classify it as another creature. But is that natural selection or naturally occuring evolution? Is genetically tampering humans and other creatures to create something that wasn't naturally selected or conceived also evolution? Is eating genetically modified foods constantly, then causing unknown and unforeseen changes in some creature natural selection and evolution in action or just tampering with them?
We could feed the gnat or fruitfly over thousands of generations what we think they eat, but then what we provide them to eat may not be cultivated correctly, as it would naturally, or if it is, what that eats may not even be cultivated correctly, and so it may not truly be simulating their natural habitat. I remember seeing a sci-fi show where there were humans in an exhibit in a zoo, the sign for the aliens to read stated that the human spends 40% of their time in this room, which was a sorry excuse for a living room with a television set that didn't work. The humans were miserable. The point is that anytime we try to simulate a habitat or something like that, we fail miserably.
I heard a story from my math teacher once. I researcher conducting an experiment puts a frog on the table, draws a line and shouts "JUMP" and measures how far the frog jumped. Puts the frog back, cuts of an arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts the frog back. He cuts of the other arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, and puts the frog back. He cuts of a leg, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts it back. He cuts of the last leg, shouts "JUMP", it doesn't move, so he concludes the frog must be deaf because it didn't respond.
The point is that we can be misinterpreting the data and drawing false conclusions. Many people who support the theory of evolution are not open to the idea that they may be wrong. Even as a Creationist, I'm certainly open to the idea that I may be wrong, but evolution hasn't yet been proven to be conclusive. In our lifetime, it may not be. In 500 years, perhaps we'll have a clearer picture and more time to observe naturally occurring phonomena.
In any case, I'm even willing to accept that our Creator provided us with the ability to adapt and change perhaps, "perhaps", speciate. Even so, whatever speciates is still what its ancestor was. I worm wouldn't become a fish or a human or an ape to a human. We might be very similar but that doesn't mean we weren't created similar to begine with.
But I don't doubt everything, as I've been labeled a "epistemelogical nihilist". I just don't think there's enough evidence to support evolution any more than I think there's enough evidence to support that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before his capture.
For every proof that this happens, there's also research that discounts it. The fact is, the we can't even agree on what our research suggests. In any case, you certainly are convinced its a fact. I've already admitted I believe in specie adaptation. But I just don't think the evidence is solid enough for me to believe that we came from an ape or a worm. Again, that's where I refer to fossil records. They are only partial story and not a full record of lineage.
A mosquito living near a nuclear powerplant or chemical factory might grow a 6th pair of wings and 2 additional legs and another eye. We might even classify it as another creature. But is that natural selection or naturally occuring evolution? Is genetically tampering humans and other creatures to create something that wasn't naturally selected or conceived also evolution? Is eating genetically modified foods constantly, then causing unknown and unforeseen changes in some creature natural selection and evolution in action or just tampering with them?
We could feed the gnat or fruitfly over thousands of generations what we think they eat, but then what we provide them to eat may not be cultivated correctly, as it would naturally, or if it is, what that eats may not even be cultivated correctly, and so it may not truly be simulating their natural habitat. I remember seeing a sci-fi show where there were humans in an exhibit in a zoo, the sign for the aliens to read stated that the human spends 40% of their time in this room, which was a sorry excuse for a living room with a television set that didn't work. The humans were miserable. The point is that anytime we try to simulate a habitat or something like that, we fail miserably.
I heard a story from my math teacher once. I researcher conducting an experiment puts a frog on the table, draws a line and shouts "JUMP" and measures how far the frog jumped. Puts the frog back, cuts of an arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts the frog back. He cuts of the other arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, and puts the frog back. He cuts of a leg, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts it back. He cuts of the last leg, shouts "JUMP", it doesn't move, so he concludes the frog must be deaf because it didn't respond.
The point is that we can be misinterpreting the data and drawing false conclusions. Many people who support the theory of evolution are not open to the idea that they may be wrong. Even as a Creationist, I'm certainly open to the idea that I may be wrong, but evolution hasn't yet been proven to be conclusive. In our lifetime, it may not be. In 500 years, perhaps we'll have a clearer picture and more time to observe naturally occurring phonomena.
In any case, I'm even willing to accept that our Creator provided us with the ability to adapt and change perhaps, "perhaps", speciate. Even so, whatever speciates is still what its ancestor was. I worm wouldn't become a fish or a human or an ape to a human. We might be very similar but that doesn't mean we weren't created similar to begine with.
But I don't doubt everything, as someone recently called me a "epistemelogical nihilist". I just don't think there's enough evidence to support evolution any more than I think there's enough evidence to support that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before his capture.
By the level of determination that you show towards me, even labeling me "epistemelogical nihilist", and the examples you give, leads me to believe that you think evolution is fact, one most scientist don't believe it to be fact, though it is certainly taught that way. In any case, I can label you stubborn and equally un-openminded as well, but I don't. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just not convinced, not that I don't want to be, I'm just not. What looks like irrefutable evidence to you looks like speculation to me.
I actually went and looked up the word nihilism after posting my previous reply. I do not believe that word even remotely descibes me in the slightest stretch of the imagination. Perhaps it describes others, or a certain prevailing attitude, of which I might share some characteristics, but I don't discount evolution on the basis of religion, or doubt that we can really know anything. Everything is "knowable", some of our ideals might have to be revised one way or the next.
I discount it on the basis that no one has observed it and that we're really only throwing out ideas with no absolute way to measure them, even remotely. I just don't believe that looking at fossil records can be nearly as conclusive as most supporters of dawrinian evolution would have me believe.
Anyway, I've said all I have to say on this matter. Thanks for the chat. Its been stimulating.
Very interesting manipulation of my words. I'm impressed.
> * I don't know that germs exist, because I've never
seen them, and even if I had, I don't "know" that
they cause disease--it's just a postulate.
I've seen some germs. I've also witnessed them under a microscope cause anomalies to other host cells. Didn't you ever take biology?
> * I don't know that the Earth is round... > * I don't know that atoms exist. > * I don't "know" that WWII happened, or for
that matter, whether anything before a
certain day in Dec 1969 happened. > * I don't know that the Earth revolves around
the sun. [/Quote]
Most of these examples you give, we can safely trust in our common knowledge of them, because they have indeed been observed by many people and confirmed and measured within our lifetime or at least within the lifetime of people still alive today.
Evolution on the other hand has not been witnessed by anyone in any lifetime. When was the last time we witnessed a fish grow legs and walk out of the ocean.
I'm not up-to-speed with how others react to this topic. But you're about as intend on insisting your perspective as I am what I believe. The simple fact, is most of the other examples you gave, whether theory or not, we've measured them and observed them quite conclusively.
Evolution should not be confused with facts. We truly have not observed it on a very grand scale. We have observed what appears to be small cases of species adapting, but we've yet to witness an eyeball change or a creature change phylum. All the species that we've observed change, are still nearly identicle to what they were before the change. Thus, I agree and am willing to believe that such adpatations and micro changes happen.
One of my favorite examples is some kind of African elephant I was watching a Learning Channel documentary on, they were so hunted during the early 1900's for just their tusks, and them being such emotional creatures, grieving over any dead elephant they come across, they finally started being born (after about 40 years or so of being "hunted") without tusks. I find that as a prime example of species adaptation, but they didn't start growing arms or a bigger brain with which to attack the humans back, they just "adapted" to their environment and continued being the elephant they were. However, who knows how not having tusks has effected them, that was their primary means of showing dominance and winning a mate, IIRC.
I very much believe in science and medical science. But there's just not enough evidence (beyond fossil records and inconclusive postulating) to suport macro evolution as introduced by Darwin.
Regarding your quote (which I happen to like very much, I'd be interested in reading the source) "Scientists don't really KNOW any of this. All they have is a theory that happens to fit the facts." I'll agree completely. I just am not convinced of any facts substantiating macro evolution. I'm not unwilling, I just happen to believe it to be more of a leap of faith then believing in a Creator.
When I first started reading and replying to your post, I thought you were trolling, but after reading and re-reading your post, I think you actually are interesting in having a decent conversation (somewhat). It's enjoyable, rather than being slandered over what I believe.
This is actually a reply to a more specific thread on this topic, but I'm pasting it here because I think it worth the say to a more general audience.... the thread in question is:
You're very assertive, but did you witness it first-hand? For that matter, did I witness our creation first-hand? The answer to both questions is "no". Both require a fair amount of faith to believe in.
There's a Star Trek: Voyager episode, "Living Witness" (http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-4/witness.html) that actually provides some though provoking parallels (well, close enough to make my point). Basically, 700 years in the future, a civilization has used fossil records and debree as a means of determining a doctrine that the Voyager crew was hostile. Their purpose for doing so was revisionist, unlike the root of this conversation. They would look at fossil records and theorize certain things and many of the details were in fact, innaccurate. Well worth the watch.
It very much applies to this conversation. We are looking at fossil records and postulating, but who knows whether we're interpreting the data incorrectly. Just recently Slashdot had a story about how some feathered dinosaurs were found fossilized, when the creature in question was previously thought more reptilian than feathered (assuming the discovery was true).
Now, I've said this before, I'll say it again: I don't know whether I believe in ID so-called, as I've never taken the time to understand it, and every reference I hear to it seems to indicate it is a bit different than Creationism. I do believe in Creationism. I do not believe Creationism is incompatible with evolotion (in general) but more specifically, I think our thoeries of evolution are incorrect and thus far, inconclusive. To the extend I think they are compatible, is the extent that I believe a species will adapt to their environment and certain conditions can cause changes, such as people growing taller or whatever. Is that species evolving into another that one day will not become compatible with humans? As far as I'm aware, all humans are compatible with each other respective to the ability to procreate, dispite any other localized differences.
We can live near a nuclear powerplant and become "changed" as well as our offspring, which can possibly become incompatible with both society and procreation with other non-changed humans, is that evolution in action? Is genetically modifying genes and other things, such as foods that we eat, that might cause unpredictable things to happen to us, also evolution in action?
The simple fact is, we don't know for sure that one creature became another. All we're doing is looking at fossils and DNA and thoerizing (is that a word?), similar to the main characteristic of the Voyager episode cited above. With the same conviction that you believe in evolution, so do I believe in Creationism. I've been told more than once that anyone with a brain can see right past the religious dogma and see the "truth". I do have a brain, I have looked at some of the details, and am not completely convinced of the current form of the thoery of evolution. It is not a life endeavor of mine to spend all my time seeking the "truth" anyway, much as it is not a life endeavor of mine to better understand quantum physics. So I make best with what I can, as do you I'm sure.
In any case, I choose to believe in Creationism for many other reasons than I can list here, but I hope I can effectively communicate that I'm not mindless or uneducated and have a fairly open mind. Open mind, not to be confused with easily persuaded or mindless (sometimes when people te
You're very assertive, but did you witness it first-hand? For that matter, did I witness our creation first-hand? The answer to both questions is "no". Both require a fair amount of faith to believe in.
There's a Star Trek: Voyager episode, "Living Witness" (http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-4/witness.html) that actually provides some though provoking parallels (well, close enough to make my point). Basically, 700 years in the future, a civilization has used fossil records and debree as a means of determining a doctrine that the Voyager crew was hostile. Their purpose for doing so was revisionist, unlike the root of this conversation. They would look at fossil records and theorize certain things and many of the details were in fact, innaccurate. Well worth the watch.
It very much applies to this conversation. We are looking at fossil records and postulating, but who knows whether we're interpreting the data incorrectly. Just recently Slashdot had a story about how some feathered dinosaurs were found fossilized, when the creature in question was previously thought more reptilian than feathered (assuming the discovery was true).
Now, I've said this before, I'll say it again: I don't know whether I believe in ID so-called, as I've never taken the time to understand it, and every reference I hear to it seems to indicate it is a bit different than Creationism. I do believe in Creationism. I do not believe Creationism is incompatible with evolotion (in general) but more specifically, I think our thoeries of evolution are incorrect and thus far, inconclusive. To the extend I think they are compatible, is the extent that I believe a species will adapt to their environment and certain conditions can cause changes, such as people growing taller or whatever. Is that species evolving into another that one day will not become compatible with humans? As far as I'm aware, all humans are compatible with each other respective to the ability to procreate, dispite any other localized differences.
We can live near a nuclear powerplant and become "changed" as well as our offspring, which can possibly become incompatible with both society and procreation with other non-changed humans, is that evolution in action? Is genetically modifying genes and other things, such as foods that we eat, that might cause unpredictable things to happen to us, also evolution in action?
The simple fact is, we don't know for sure that one creature became another. All we're doing is looking at fossils and DNA and thoerizing (is that a word?), similar to the main characteristic of the Voyager episode cited above. With the same conviction that you believe in evolution, so do I believe in Creationism. I've been told more than once that anyone with a brain can see right past the religious dogma and see the "truth". I do have a brain, I have looked at some of the details, and am not completely convinced of the current form of the thoery of evolution. It is not a life endeavor of mine to spend all my time seeking the "truth" anyway, much as it is not a life endeavor of mine to better understand quantum physics. So I make best with what I can, as do you I'm sure.
In any case, I choose to believe in Creationism for many other reasons than I can list here, but I hope I can effectively communicate that I'm not mindless or uneducated and have a fairly open mind. Open mind, not to be confused with easily persuaded or mindless (sometimes when people tell me I need to open my mind what they are really saying is I need to believe what they do). There's an element of doubt in both Creationism and evolution. Each requires faith, I choose the one over the other. Simple as that. Neither of which have been proven or disproven conclusively, and because of that, I cannot possibly be dogmatic for choosing the religious one over evolution, any more than one choosing evolution over Creationism.
But the judge stated the ID cannot be seperated from the roots of Creationism and thus, religious dogma. That is a paraphrase, of course.
Howevwer, something I didn't make clear in my comment, is that I'm in agreement that schools shouldn't be teaching religious materials in a scientific class. Perhaps, public institutions shouldn't even teach any religious material at all. I believe firmly in Christianity, but even so, its a can of worms to have it in a public institution. Why? Well, it's simple, really.
Most Christians would not be too happy if public schools started teaching Islam or Buddhism, and probly likewise, it wouldn't make the Muslum people happy if they were teaching Christianity, especially while their children were attending. However, each group would be perfectly happy to have their own faith being taught. This is precisely the scenario that the "seperation of church and state" doctrine is addressing, among other things.
In any case, I don't even know if I believe in ID myself, not having taken the time to understand it. Every reference I see to it indicates it is a bit different than Creationism, which I do in fact, believe in. But that is another story.
Well, actually, it is taught in every public institution I've ever attended. But the fact is, when we state the George Washington was the first President, we are in fact, implying, the first President of the United States. Most people would understand it as such, being, that we grew up in the United States, under the Constition.
However, the first president was John Hanson during the time of the Articles of Confederation. There was no executive branch back then and the President played a very different role than our current presidential institution.
Further more, how do you ask, "who was the first president?" without specifying what president we're talking about?... "who was the first president of the United State?", "Who was the first president of the Union?" Thus, without context, one might actually confuse the second for the third. So we'd need to specify context in order to get the correct answer.
I've seen Jeopordy episides, where, in a very general sense, when the question came up, the correct question was "Who was George Washington?"... but then in a very distinctive sense, in a U.S. history theme, the correct question was "Who was John Hanson?". Just needs context, is all, and the default context is, the United States, on the whole.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd take that chance any day over paying out rent and not having my money work for me. A house is an investment. Investements sometimes work, sometimes fail. Paying rent each month, when you could have a chance to purchase a home, is just stupid.
Me? I had a chance in 1999 to puchase a 5 bedroom 4,200 sqft. home in Southern California, to live in alone for a while until I find a wife and have children and can "grow" into it, for $380k. Most homes were about $200k back then (by comparison, most homes are $750k in the area now). My family convinced me not to so I didn't. I eventually found myself a wife (no children yet) and took her to see the same house I almost purchase (I would have been the first owner). It was actually on the market and sold for 1.2 million (after 5 years). Ouch!!!
Since then, I racked up over $30 in consumer debt (new truck, school, credit cards mostly) and spent 4 years paying between $1k and $3k/mo. all the while still increasing my consumer debt until I paid overything off. Lots of bad decisions. All the while, my apartment rent increased from $700 in early 2000 until now, my apartment just shot to $1,920/mo for a two bedroom two bath apartment and it is in line with most other apartments.
What's my point? My income is roughly the same today that it has been 3 years ago (20% more). But my costs of living have kept going up. We've come to realize we can't buy a house here so we've started buying houses out of state and renting them out. Pretty soon, we'll be buying our own home and I'll probly find a new trade (I'm a software engineer currently). California is way too expensive.
However, in retrospect, if I had purchased that $380k house in 1999, I would have a period of 12 months in 2001 through most of 2002 where I was unemployed. I may have lost the house. I may have been able to sell it quickly with lots of equity. Who cares? I'd rather put my money into a house that has the potential to be mine over puting $21k/yr. into an apartment that'll never be mine and never score me some tax relief.
In any case, I keep buying 1 new house every year and sometimes two. I have the income currently (I net about $9,500/mo.) so while I have the chance I'll take advantage of it. I think that's more sound than sinking it into one house that is way over inflated. I hate living in California now anyway, too many people and angry drivers on the road.
The point is a house is always a sound investment. If the price drop and so does your job and you take a loss on foreclosing, oh well. Try again in 7 years. Of course, these days, trying to lease an apartment will score you a credit check and might get you rejected but that's another story... otherwise, hand on to it. In calfornia, in 10 years, it'll probly double over what it is today.
In the end, you'll never lose with property if you hang on to it long enough.
Thanks,
Leabre
Something is only fair use when the **AA's think it is fair. If they keep their crusade up, we won't be able to do anything with music and movies except pay and watch once before we pay again for having completed watching. Go to the Indy's you say. How long before the Indy's have to "abide" by the same forced legislation that the **AA's cram down our throats?
Thanks,
Leabre
So that's why most lawyers these days don't have a clue what the Constitution is... I see, their too busy playing solitaire and not paying attention. Hmm. like our crap public school system that graduates anyone our legal school do the same... that explains everything.
Thanks,
Leabre
it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David."
The way I remember the story of David v Goliath is that a little stone flung between the eyes of giant Goliath caused immediate death. What happened next? David used Goliath's own sword to cut off the giant's head then went and killed his brothers.
Me thinks it might be better to side with David, but that's just me. Or, the author picked the wrong analogy.
Thanks,
Leabre
Until in 5 years we have one company: Verizon SBC AT&T COX TimeWarner Qweset MSN DISH, Inc. providing the only hish speed access point.
Thanks,
Leabre
I wonder how many buffer overflows a domain like that can expose in IE?
There's a good chance the the first few people to be succesfully revived will be celebrities. But you're point is well taken, they will be about as overwhealmed in their day as a 1st centry Roman would be overwhealmed if he woke up in current society without a proper incubation period to adjust (the incubation period meaning his whole life from infancy).
Thanks,
Leabre
I added you as a friend recently because I like your views on copyright and that you are willing to try "different" things and that it actually seems to be working.
.NET was released and the small-time publisher didn't want to take a risk of publishing something nobody had an interest in. Now I have control of it. I've been wanting to update it and release it under my own terms. I've been looking at the Creative Commons copyright terms, where anyone can download, share, and produce the book even for profit without sharing that profit with me and in-turn, offering people an official hardcopy printed book if its that important to them or they can pay for consultation services of related work through me if they so desire.
The **AA's are blowing everything way too much out of proportion. Obviously, the widespread use of P2P networks and their ease-of-use makes it easy to infringe on their copyrights and violate their traditional distribution monopolies. I might agree something needs to be done about that but not at the price they are making us pay. We aren't their slaves and, for as much as we don't have a "right" to their content, they don't have a "right" to my pocket book. Hampering technological progress might help their short-term earnings, in the long run, it will hurt civilization.
In anycase, I wrote a book that didn't get published because it was on VB6 at a time when the original Beta 2 of
In the end, I think releasing it directly into the public domain would be a better model. Not sure. But it seems to work for music, I think it can work for published material as well.
We need to move forward. Information is a commodity these days, there are so many willing to share it. There's no reason to lock it up behind closed doors. I have friends that have been hired for their knowledge and when they start work they have to sign papers saying all their knowledge belongs to the company and they can't use it outside of working hourse or for x number of years/months after employment ends. That's rediculous. This whole IP thing is really getting out of hand and mainly, I think it is the **AA's paranoia that is feeding most of it.
I don't think they really care about piracy. They just want absolute control over all distribution both now and in the future. Its only a matter of time before I can produce my own music on my own dime and have to pay the **AA's for their blessing to approve it into any kind of distrobution, whatsover. In that capacity, they receive money no matter their members produce it or not. I don't approve of that. I have no connection with them and I don't need their blessing, thank you very much.
America, the best democracy money can buy.
Hopefuly your approach to music and copynots will catch on and work will for many.
Thanks,
Leabre
I'll agree with this. When was the last time we said "I invented a new way to subit data through an asynchronous XML stream to the server using Javascript?" Or "look what technique I invented?"...
Myself and just about everyone else I know simply say things to the effect "look what I discovered..." or "I finally discovered how to boost performance of our database by 200% by doing x and y"... or "I finally solved the problem.". "Solved", to a lesser extent, implying discovery and not invention.
However, we might not say "I discovered the IC chip and transister" but "[someone] invented the IC chip" or "[someone] invented the transister". Things like the internet are not discovered, we don't say "DARPA discovered the internet" we say things like "Al Gore invented the Internet".
My point being, when we speak of software solutions we usually use the term "discovered a solution" implying that the solution was always there waiting to be discovered, also implying by "solution" that it isn't an invention, but a discovery.
But in a world where a gene can be patented, I hold little hope that anyone with significant persuasion power to understand. I'm not talking about the masses, because in general, we appear to be relatively powerless. I'm talking about the lobby.
A good "bridge" would be no patents at all. Let the market remain free an unincumbered by artificial monopolies and thought, expression, and further discovery. Isn't that how we got here in the first place? Why do we need patents when we did just fine without them in the first place?
Thanks,
Leabre
The reason I haven't implemented it, but have thought of it, is because someone has to pay for the bandwidth and if I end up with even 5% of the bandwidth that Slashdot uses, I'd go broke real quick. But, its a great idea and I'd like to see someone front the bill.
The better way to do it is use a special torrent network for storing the information but that in itself has its own technical hurdles to overcome, but shared bandwidth and storage would be the best way to make it work, but that would open it to corruption moreso than a trusted storage point but just gobbles of tainted information.
Thanks,
Leabre
I think there are two good ways to help mitigate at least the pretexting aspect, if not teh outright insider-fraud aspect: a challenge-response mechanism. When changing my address with my cellphone carrier yesterday, they asked me all kinds of personal information, all of which could be easily located by the determined, and then finally they asked me for two pieces of information that are not readinly available: a pin number that I supposedly specified 6 years ago (and never used since) and the 3 digit number on my credit card that I started the account with. Of course, I didn't know the pin and I don't have that credit card anymore so they were happy with my mother's maiden name (which fortunately, no one else knows due to a series of nuances in my life and, the fact, that, I made one up that is only in my head)... and my social.
That said, if a secret PIN was required before such information can be divuldged, under any circumstance, except a search-warrant, then there wouldn't be such a problem. Perhaps, on certain types of information, such as previous or current phone records, they would actually initiate a phone call a phone number on your record (word, home, cell, other) and when you answer it would have to approve the transaction before it could be divulged.
Of course, the problem is deeper, we probly agreed to allow our information to be shared with any other business even if we opt-out, the data belongs to that company and there must be a million ways to skirt your opt-out option. Of course, the information is naturally, it appears, more easily available to all parties but yourself. Such is life.
A simple challenge responce and authentication-required via some very secret information (such as a PIN) would help a lot. Also, if every made up their mothers maiden name, that would help out, too, since no one else would be able to discover it unless they overheard you speak it in a public place while authenticating for some other reason, for that reason, I rarely make such phone calls in public. But even my vehicle and house can be bugged, so you're really not "safe".
Thanks,
Leabre
I forgot to say, when it comes to culture, I, by far, prefer working with Microsot programmers (.NET/C++/VB) becuase of their general attitude. In the many places I've worked and consulted, they generally (not as a rule of thumb) want to learn more, be good like that Java guys (there's a weird perception at play here) and are open to new ideas and not generally zealous and anti-linux or anti-oss.
Working with Java people or Linux zealots, on the other hand, is not for the faint of heart. They are so anti-microsoft, anti-capitolist software market, so friggin' self-righteous, and whatnot that its annoying. Since I'm not in this camp, I prefer the more lax Microsoft sheeple-type culture over the annoying and forceful anti-everying-but-what-I-believe-in camp.
Thanks,
Leabre
If only I can mod you one. I think the main sentiment on /. is simply "Microsoft Sucks, .NET Sucks, Java rocks, Ruby and Python all the way". I make a living in C# development since the earliest of betas. I've only recently startd Java development but after spending years on .NET and still learning things about it, just getting started in Java is a daunting task. In the end, I think they are both serious contenders but Microsoft really has the ease-of-use thing down to an art.
In any case, one isn't better than the other, IMO. Just that whichever you learn, you'll be more productive in, naturally. But as far as the Eclipse v. VS.NET, I think the whole anti-microsoft attitude is detrimental to OSS as a whole. Sure, they only know how to play catchup and follow-the-leader, but in doing so, there's so much they miss and refuse to learn from which can make their own offerings even better.
I say, learn which ever one you want and look for work doing it. Be happy. The happiest programmers I know are the most productive and inspirational. I hate working with unhappy programmers because they are so de-motivating.
Thanks,
Leabre
The similarities between Java and C# are really only sking deep, regarding syntax. Beyond that, it'll take more than a couple days time to learn and be good and productive in either "environment". I say that because the .NET namespaces and Java package libraries are not a walk in the park to learn and become proficient in. After 5 years working with .NET (since the earliest of betas) I'm still learning things about the .NET framework (and C#) and I'm very good at what I do. Not a beginner, not a slacker, and definately understand architecture and design.
.NET, but it is drasitically different. Having to forget all the things that .NET makes easy and learn the Java way is driving me bonkers. Java is huge, and whenever I stumble on one way to do something 10 more better ways open up and some worse. There are so many reivent-the-wheel projects in Java that things really do take time to learn.
Try learning C++. You can learn the syntax in a couple days, but try becoming good at C++ development and it'll take a bit longer than a few days, months at least. Same with Perl and Python. Everyones mileage varies, but I have difficulty with those languages, but then, they serve a different need than the ones I get paid to work on for a living. Perhaps its my motivation to care that causes the difficulty.
What's true, is that, once you've understood the basics, principles, design and architecture, it shouldn't be too difficult to apply the knowledge in another language, but, in reality, doesn't always work out that way. You still have to learn the intricacies of a platform (.NET/Java/Rails/Etc.) before you can really *do things right*. It takes time. I've only recently started Java programming. I do not find in inherantly different than
Thus, only the syntax will take a few days to learn well. The specific traits and capabilities of the platform/language take months or even years to truly learn and master.
Thanks,
Leabre
Someone played too much Contra when they were younger...
Thanks,
Leabre
The first google search on "16th amendment" pulls up this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment16/ .
Click on the "history" link and you'll get a different story than the amendment never being ratified.
Thanks,
Leabre
For every proof that this happens, there's also research that discounts it. The fact is, the we can't even agree on what our research suggests. In any case, you certainly are convinced its a fact. I've already admitted I believe in specie adaptation. But I just don't think the evidence is solid enough for me to believe that we came from an ape or a worm. Again, that's where I refer to fossil records. They are only partial story and not a full record of lineage.
A mosquito living near a nuclear powerplant or chemical factory might grow a 6th pair of wings and 2 additional legs and another eye. We might even classify it as another creature. But is that natural selection or naturally occuring evolution? Is genetically tampering humans and other creatures to create something that wasn't naturally selected or conceived also evolution? Is eating genetically modified foods constantly, then causing unknown and unforeseen changes in some creature natural selection and evolution in action or just tampering with them?
We could feed the gnat or fruitfly over thousands of generations what we think they eat, but then what we provide them to eat may not be cultivated correctly, as it would naturally, or if it is, what that eats may not even be cultivated correctly, and so it may not truly be simulating their natural habitat. I remember seeing a sci-fi show where there were humans in an exhibit in a zoo, the sign for the aliens to read stated that the human spends 40% of their time in this room, which was a sorry excuse for a living room with a television set that didn't work. The humans were miserable. The point is that anytime we try to simulate a habitat or something like that, we fail miserably.
I heard a story from my math teacher once. I researcher conducting an experiment puts a frog on the table, draws a line and shouts "JUMP" and measures how far the frog jumped. Puts the frog back, cuts of an arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts the frog back. He cuts of the other arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, and puts the frog back. He cuts of a leg, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts it back. He cuts of the last leg, shouts "JUMP", it doesn't move, so he concludes the frog must be deaf because it didn't respond.
The point is that we can be misinterpreting the data and drawing false conclusions. Many people who support the theory of evolution are not open to the idea that they may be wrong. Even as a Creationist, I'm certainly open to the idea that I may be wrong, but evolution hasn't yet been proven to be conclusive. In our lifetime, it may not be. In 500 years, perhaps we'll have a clearer picture and more time to observe naturally occurring phonomena.
In any case, I'm even willing to accept that our Creator provided us with the ability to adapt and change perhaps, "perhaps", speciate. Even so, whatever speciates is still what its ancestor was. I worm wouldn't become a fish or a human or an ape to a human. We might be very similar but that doesn't mean we weren't created similar to begine with.
But I don't doubt everything, as I've been labeled a "epistemelogical nihilist". I just don't think there's enough evidence to support evolution any more than I think there's enough evidence to support that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before his capture.
Thanks for the chat.
Thanks,
Leabre
For every proof that this happens, there's also research that discounts it. The fact is, the we can't even agree on what our research suggests. In any case, you certainly are convinced its a fact. I've already admitted I believe in specie adaptation. But I just don't think the evidence is solid enough for me to believe that we came from an ape or a worm. Again, that's where I refer to fossil records. They are only partial story and not a full record of lineage.
A mosquito living near a nuclear powerplant or chemical factory might grow a 6th pair of wings and 2 additional legs and another eye. We might even classify it as another creature. But is that natural selection or naturally occuring evolution? Is genetically tampering humans and other creatures to create something that wasn't naturally selected or conceived also evolution? Is eating genetically modified foods constantly, then causing unknown and unforeseen changes in some creature natural selection and evolution in action or just tampering with them?
We could feed the gnat or fruitfly over thousands of generations what we think they eat, but then what we provide them to eat may not be cultivated correctly, as it would naturally, or if it is, what that eats may not even be cultivated correctly, and so it may not truly be simulating their natural habitat. I remember seeing a sci-fi show where there were humans in an exhibit in a zoo, the sign for the aliens to read stated that the human spends 40% of their time in this room, which was a sorry excuse for a living room with a television set that didn't work. The humans were miserable. The point is that anytime we try to simulate a habitat or something like that, we fail miserably.
I heard a story from my math teacher once. I researcher conducting an experiment puts a frog on the table, draws a line and shouts "JUMP" and measures how far the frog jumped. Puts the frog back, cuts of an arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts the frog back. He cuts of the other arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, and puts the frog back. He cuts of a leg, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts it back. He cuts of the last leg, shouts "JUMP", it doesn't move, so he concludes the frog must be deaf because it didn't respond.
The point is that we can be misinterpreting the data and drawing false conclusions. Many people who support the theory of evolution are not open to the idea that they may be wrong. Even as a Creationist, I'm certainly open to the idea that I may be wrong, but evolution hasn't yet been proven to be conclusive. In our lifetime, it may not be. In 500 years, perhaps we'll have a clearer picture and more time to observe naturally occurring phonomena.
In any case, I'm even willing to accept that our Creator provided us with the ability to adapt and change perhaps, "perhaps", speciate. Even so, whatever speciates is still what its ancestor was. I worm wouldn't become a fish or a human or an ape to a human. We might be very similar but that doesn't mean we weren't created similar to begine with.
But I don't doubt everything, as someone recently called me a "epistemelogical nihilist". I just don't think there's enough evidence to support evolution any more than I think there's enough evidence to support that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before his capture.
Thanks,
Leabre
By the level of determination that you show towards me, even labeling me "epistemelogical nihilist", and the examples you give, leads me to believe that you think evolution is fact, one most scientist don't believe it to be fact, though it is certainly taught that way. In any case, I can label you stubborn and equally un-openminded as well, but I don't. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just not convinced, not that I don't want to be, I'm just not. What looks like irrefutable evidence to you looks like speculation to me.
Thanks,
Leabre
I actually went and looked up the word nihilism after posting my previous reply. I do not believe that word even remotely descibes me in the slightest stretch of the imagination. Perhaps it describes others, or a certain prevailing attitude, of which I might share some characteristics, but I don't discount evolution on the basis of religion, or doubt that we can really know anything. Everything is "knowable", some of our ideals might have to be revised one way or the next.
I discount it on the basis that no one has observed it and that we're really only throwing out ideas with no absolute way to measure them, even remotely. I just don't believe that looking at fossil records can be nearly as conclusive as most supporters of dawrinian evolution would have me believe.
Anyway, I've said all I have to say on this matter. Thanks for the chat. Its been stimulating.
Thanks,
Leabre
Very interesting manipulation of my words. I'm impressed.
> * I don't know that germs exist, because I've never
seen them, and even if I had, I don't "know" that
they cause disease--it's just a postulate.
I've seen some germs. I've also witnessed them under a microscope cause anomalies to other host cells. Didn't you ever take biology?
> * I don't know that the Earth is round...
> * I don't know that atoms exist.
> * I don't "know" that WWII happened, or for
that matter, whether anything before a
certain day in Dec 1969 happened.
> * I don't know that the Earth revolves around
the sun. [/Quote]
Most of these examples you give, we can safely trust in our common knowledge of them, because they have indeed been observed by many people and confirmed and measured within our lifetime or at least within the lifetime of people still alive today.
Evolution on the other hand has not been witnessed by anyone in any lifetime. When was the last time we witnessed a fish grow legs and walk out of the ocean.
I'm not up-to-speed with how others react to this topic. But you're about as intend on insisting your perspective as I am what I believe. The simple fact, is most of the other examples you gave, whether theory or not, we've measured them and observed them quite conclusively.
Evolution should not be confused with facts. We truly have not observed it on a very grand scale. We have observed what appears to be small cases of species adapting, but we've yet to witness an eyeball change or a creature change phylum. All the species that we've observed change, are still nearly identicle to what they were before the change. Thus, I agree and am willing to believe that such adpatations and micro changes happen.
One of my favorite examples is some kind of African elephant I was watching a Learning Channel documentary on, they were so hunted during the early 1900's for just their tusks, and them being such emotional creatures, grieving over any dead elephant they come across, they finally started being born (after about 40 years or so of being "hunted") without tusks. I find that as a prime example of species adaptation, but they didn't start growing arms or a bigger brain with which to attack the humans back, they just "adapted" to their environment and continued being the elephant they were. However, who knows how not having tusks has effected them, that was their primary means of showing dominance and winning a mate, IIRC.
I very much believe in science and medical science. But there's just not enough evidence (beyond fossil records and inconclusive postulating) to suport macro evolution as introduced by Darwin.
Regarding your quote (which I happen to like very much, I'd be interested in reading the source) "Scientists don't really KNOW any of this. All they have is a theory that happens to fit the facts." I'll agree completely. I just am not convinced of any facts substantiating macro evolution. I'm not unwilling, I just happen to believe it to be more of a leap of faith then believing in a Creator.
When I first started reading and replying to your post, I thought you were trolling, but after reading and re-reading your post, I think you actually are interesting in having a decent conversation (somewhat). It's enjoyable, rather than being slandered over what I believe.
Thanks,
Leabre
This is actually a reply to a more specific thread on this topic, but I'm pasting it here because I think it worth the say to a more general audience.... the thread in question is:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171719&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=1&tid=99&mode=thread&cid=1430287 9
---------------
You're very assertive, but did you witness it first-hand? For that matter, did I witness our creation first-hand? The answer to both questions is "no". Both require a fair amount of faith to believe in.
There's a Star Trek: Voyager episode, "Living Witness" (http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-4/witness.html) that actually provides some though provoking parallels (well, close enough to make my point). Basically, 700 years in the future, a civilization has used fossil records and debree as a means of determining a doctrine that the Voyager crew was hostile. Their purpose for doing so was revisionist, unlike the root of this conversation. They would look at fossil records and theorize certain things and many of the details were in fact, innaccurate. Well worth the watch.
It very much applies to this conversation. We are looking at fossil records and postulating, but who knows whether we're interpreting the data incorrectly. Just recently Slashdot had a story about how some feathered dinosaurs were found fossilized, when the creature in question was previously thought more reptilian than feathered (assuming the discovery was true).
Now, I've said this before, I'll say it again: I don't know whether I believe in ID so-called, as I've never taken the time to understand it, and every reference I hear to it seems to indicate it is a bit different than Creationism. I do believe in Creationism. I do not believe Creationism is incompatible with evolotion (in general) but more specifically, I think our thoeries of evolution are incorrect and thus far, inconclusive. To the extend I think they are compatible, is the extent that I believe a species will adapt to their environment and certain conditions can cause changes, such as people growing taller or whatever. Is that species evolving into another that one day will not become compatible with humans? As far as I'm aware, all humans are compatible with each other respective to the ability to procreate, dispite any other localized differences.
We can live near a nuclear powerplant and become "changed" as well as our offspring, which can possibly become incompatible with both society and procreation with other non-changed humans, is that evolution in action? Is genetically modifying genes and other things, such as foods that we eat, that might cause unpredictable things to happen to us, also evolution in action?
The simple fact is, we don't know for sure that one creature became another. All we're doing is looking at fossils and DNA and thoerizing (is that a word?), similar to the main characteristic of the Voyager episode cited above. With the same conviction that you believe in evolution, so do I believe in Creationism. I've been told more than once that anyone with a brain can see right past the religious dogma and see the "truth". I do have a brain, I have looked at some of the details, and am not completely convinced of the current form of the thoery of evolution. It is not a life endeavor of mine to spend all my time seeking the "truth" anyway, much as it is not a life endeavor of mine to better understand quantum physics. So I make best with what I can, as do you I'm sure.
In any case, I choose to believe in Creationism for many other reasons than I can list here, but I hope I can effectively communicate that I'm not mindless or uneducated and have a fairly open mind. Open mind, not to be confused with easily persuaded or mindless (sometimes when people te
You're very assertive, but did you witness it first-hand? For that matter, did I witness our creation first-hand? The answer to both questions is "no". Both require a fair amount of faith to believe in.
There's a Star Trek: Voyager episode, "Living Witness" (http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-4/witness.html) that actually provides some though provoking parallels (well, close enough to make my point). Basically, 700 years in the future, a civilization has used fossil records and debree as a means of determining a doctrine that the Voyager crew was hostile. Their purpose for doing so was revisionist, unlike the root of this conversation. They would look at fossil records and theorize certain things and many of the details were in fact, innaccurate. Well worth the watch.
It very much applies to this conversation. We are looking at fossil records and postulating, but who knows whether we're interpreting the data incorrectly. Just recently Slashdot had a story about how some feathered dinosaurs were found fossilized, when the creature in question was previously thought more reptilian than feathered (assuming the discovery was true).
Now, I've said this before, I'll say it again: I don't know whether I believe in ID so-called, as I've never taken the time to understand it, and every reference I hear to it seems to indicate it is a bit different than Creationism. I do believe in Creationism. I do not believe Creationism is incompatible with evolotion (in general) but more specifically, I think our thoeries of evolution are incorrect and thus far, inconclusive. To the extend I think they are compatible, is the extent that I believe a species will adapt to their environment and certain conditions can cause changes, such as people growing taller or whatever. Is that species evolving into another that one day will not become compatible with humans? As far as I'm aware, all humans are compatible with each other respective to the ability to procreate, dispite any other localized differences.
We can live near a nuclear powerplant and become "changed" as well as our offspring, which can possibly become incompatible with both society and procreation with other non-changed humans, is that evolution in action? Is genetically modifying genes and other things, such as foods that we eat, that might cause unpredictable things to happen to us, also evolution in action?
The simple fact is, we don't know for sure that one creature became another. All we're doing is looking at fossils and DNA and thoerizing (is that a word?), similar to the main characteristic of the Voyager episode cited above. With the same conviction that you believe in evolution, so do I believe in Creationism. I've been told more than once that anyone with a brain can see right past the religious dogma and see the "truth". I do have a brain, I have looked at some of the details, and am not completely convinced of the current form of the thoery of evolution. It is not a life endeavor of mine to spend all my time seeking the "truth" anyway, much as it is not a life endeavor of mine to better understand quantum physics. So I make best with what I can, as do you I'm sure.
In any case, I choose to believe in Creationism for many other reasons than I can list here, but I hope I can effectively communicate that I'm not mindless or uneducated and have a fairly open mind. Open mind, not to be confused with easily persuaded or mindless (sometimes when people tell me I need to open my mind what they are really saying is I need to believe what they do). There's an element of doubt in both Creationism and evolution. Each requires faith, I choose the one over the other. Simple as that. Neither of which have been proven or disproven conclusively, and because of that, I cannot possibly be dogmatic for choosing the religious one over evolution, any more than one choosing evolution over Creationism.
Thanks,
Leabre
But the judge stated the ID cannot be seperated from the roots of Creationism and thus, religious dogma. That is a paraphrase, of course.
Howevwer, something I didn't make clear in my comment, is that I'm in agreement that schools shouldn't be teaching religious materials in a scientific class. Perhaps, public institutions shouldn't even teach any religious material at all. I believe firmly in Christianity, but even so, its a can of worms to have it in a public institution. Why? Well, it's simple, really.
Most Christians would not be too happy if public schools started teaching Islam or Buddhism, and probly likewise, it wouldn't make the Muslum people happy if they were teaching Christianity, especially while their children were attending. However, each group would be perfectly happy to have their own faith being taught. This is precisely the scenario that the "seperation of church and state" doctrine is addressing, among other things.
In any case, I don't even know if I believe in ID myself, not having taken the time to understand it. Every reference I see to it indicates it is a bit different than Creationism, which I do in fact, believe in. But that is another story.
I just thought I'd clarify.
Thanks,
Leabre
Well, actually, it is taught in every public institution I've ever attended. But the fact is, when we state the George Washington was the first President, we are in fact, implying, the first President of the United States. Most people would understand it as such, being, that we grew up in the United States, under the Constition.
... "who was the first president of the United State?", "Who was the first president of the Union?" Thus, without context, one might actually confuse the second for the third. So we'd need to specify context in order to get the correct answer.
However, the first president was John Hanson during the time of the Articles of Confederation. There was no executive branch back then and the President played a very different role than our current presidential institution.
Further more, how do you ask, "who was the first president?" without specifying what president we're talking about?
I've seen Jeopordy episides, where, in a very general sense, when the question came up, the correct question was "Who was George Washington?"... but then in a very distinctive sense, in a U.S. history theme, the correct question was "Who was John Hanson?". Just needs context, is all, and the default context is, the United States, on the whole.
Thanks,
Leabre