It recognizies that there isn't always a "natural" answer to the problems that science faces given the current information. In fact, looking for natural answers can be very unscientific.
Science is the study of nature. How, exactly, do you study the supernatural with a tool designed only to study nature?
Answer: you can't. As soon as you start exploring non-natural events, you leave the realm of science. The Kansas Board of Education is attempting to redefine science because they don't like its scope, and in so doing they will wreck the level of science education in their state and make it a global laughingstock.
Hi, I am a Christian but for the majority of my life I was not.
Which does not say anything whatsoever about your level of knowledge on any particular subject, so why do you bring it up?
I have quite a few friends who are Ph.D's or currently doing there's.
And their Ph.Ds are in what, exactly?
The common viewpoint I see with them is that they believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution.
What barrier exists that prevents "micro evolution" from accumulating into "macro evolution".
Also, again, for what are they obtaining a Ph.D? If they're getting a degree in astrophysics, then their opinion on biological evolution is worth squat.
The book looks at the scientific truth that points towards God.
An example, perhaps?
. It is interesting to learn that incorrect information (e.g. Stanley Miller Experienment
What incorrect information is being presented about the Stanley Miller Experiment?
Ernst Haeckel's drawing of Embryos) that has been scientifically proven to be wrong is still included in textbooks as factual information.
Are Hacekel's drawings being presented as examples of embryos, or do the textbooks in question actually try to claim that they are evidence for his failed hypothesis?
They shouldn't be used at all, because they're known to be so flawed, but the real dishonesty would be if the textbook was claiming that his hypothesis had been supported with evidence. Thus far, whenever creationists bring up Haeckel's drawings in textbooks, they are unable to demonstrate that the intent of the inclusion of the drawings was to show support for Haeckel's hypothesis.
I might also add that Hacekel's hypothesis was rejected by his contemporaries, who were themselves biologists and they were not Biblical creationists. (I find it important to note that when creationists trot out "frauds" within evolution science, they neglect to point out that the fraids were always exposed by other evolution scientists, and never by creationists, who have yet to actually expose a single evolution fraud
Another interesting thing to research is the Cambrian Explosion. All of a sudden a ton of new species came into existence where there were no creatures similar to them previously.
That means they do understand the advantages of science.
Not really. They've just finally come to understand that they can't get away with badmouthing science because science does carry with it a certain level of credibility, so now their goal is to claim that their own crackpot notions are themselves "scientific". Don't confuse that with thinking that they actually know what science is, how it works or why it is better.
I keep hearing this "moral relativism" thing brought up as pure, unfettered evil. Why so?
They don't like the implications. That means that it's false.
The real problem here is that those who hold to the viewpoint that "moral relativism" is evil are actually themselves outright sociopaths. The only reason that they don't break down and engage in all kinds of cruel and unspeakable acts is the fear that if they do, they'll be punished and tortured by an omnipotent "law-giver". They also believe that everyone is as ethically deficient as they are, so they assume that if people don't have this fear of an omnipotent law-giver, they'll turn to unabashed malice.
anecdotal evidence? It's not that there is no evidence, just not scientific-method evidence.
Old stories and anecdotes are not "evidence", they are stories and anecdotes. The myths of the ancient Greeks are not "evidence" for the existence of Zeus or Hera, they are -- at best -- evidence that at one time people believed in the existence of Zeus and Hera.
You are appealing to logical fallacies and calling it evidence for your position.
Why is contemporary evolutionary theory the only one I should consider? I can present any number of hypotheses that could alternately explain how the earth came to be, some using the existing evidence and others that do not. Why are you unwilling to consider those?
Unless you have evidence for your "alternative explanations", why should I consider them?
How's this. The entire universe was created as-is last Thursday by the cat Queen Maeve. Are you willing to explore this alternative origins hypothesis? If not, why not? If so...well, what exactly can you do with it?
What is this "something"? How did it cause the universe to exist? What properties have we observed that make it plausable that a) this "something" can exist or could have existed and b) this "something" had the ability to create universes?
Since they have a completely different purpose, this could not have happened by design.
This isn't true. It can easily be argued that the designer made it look like that on purpose.
In fact, that's what's wrong with "ID Theory". Absolutely anything can be attributed to "design". There is absolutely no hypothetical observation that could be used as an example of what the universe would be like if there was no design. It's completely non-falsifiable, and that is why it is not science and the only people who claim that it is are either ignorant or lying.
You admit yourself that evolution could be dead wrong
Evolution occurs. It's been observed. That's a fact, you cannot deny it unless you want to deny reality.
The overall Theory of Evolution "could" be wrong, but that is true of any scientific explanation. Absolutely no scientific explanation is set in stone. Your objection to evolution here should indicate that you should also object to every other type of science being taught in schools, and yet I don't see many people championing that cause. I wonder why. It's almost as though their objections to evolution are a bogus smokescreen to cover up their real problem: they're uncomfortable when observed reality contradicts their interpretation of religious teachings.
To be a hypothesis an idea must be falsifiable - otherwise it's "just" a theory.
A "theory" in science is more certain than a hypothesis. An explanation must be falsifiable to be scientific. If it isn't falsifiable, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, much less a theory. A theory is what happens when a hypothesis is subject to repeated testing, inquiry and revision until it is a broad-based explanation for observed phenomenon.
And this is the problem in Kansas. A bunch of morons who have no idea of what science actually is are trying to argue that evolution isn't scientific, or that "Intelligent Design" is.
I was thinking of setting up a little web sight for people who don't understand when their supposed to use the variants of the homonyms that you listed, as its really annoying to see such misuse. It makes me want to shout, "Your all a bunch of idiots!"
MplayerPlugin destabilizes Firefox for me. Sure, the video plays fine, but later my browser will spontaneously crash. I can do it regularly and reliably if I choose File->Save at any time after MplayerPlugin has run.
Sorry. I didn't know how to clarify that I meant specifically "Republican vs. Democrat".
There might be politics involved, but if the politics involved are based upon political affiliation, then the people assigned to the task are incompetent in the first place, regardless of who they support.
Wow. You really didn't RTFA, or you're just a shameless liar.
People are being purged from a completely non-partisan position. This is for a technical conference. There are no politics involved here. Whether or not someone likes Bush has no bearing on their ability to serve competently at this conference. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING THIS EXTREME.
This isn't a good thing. Bush supporters should not be cheering this, it makes them look like brainless automotons who don't analyze a single aspect of the administration's polities yet stand behind them 100%.
Of course, Godwin assumes the belief of Nazism as a historical and socio-political singularity, to which no reasonable comparison is ever appropriate. This attitude allows latter-day neo-fascism to flourish unimpeeded. All parallels drawn with fascist and Nazi examples are derisable as hyperbole and hate-mongering.
I don't quite buy this. I think that the principle behind Godwin's Law is that if the only argument you have is to compare your opponents to Nazis, then you don't really have an argument; you're just throwing out a nasty comment in order to smear the other guy.
Nazisim isn't bad simply because it's Nazism. It's bad because the individual components that make it up are the antithesis of freedom and personal liberty. If you have a regime that has some elements in common with Nazi Germany, then the best way to argue against the regime is to point out these elements and explain that they are bad and why they are bad, rather than just blinding drawing a comparison to Nazism because 1) You could just be making it up (if you can't get specific about how the regime in question is identical to Nazi Germany) and 2) You can't necessarily say that every single aspect of the Nazi regime was necessarily bad (ie: they had a military; their leaders were carbon-based bipedal life forms).
And it's just as likely for a well-behaved Christian to get fired if their liberal, bigoted boss finds out what they've been doing on their own time. What's your point?
The difference is that federal law prohibits discrimination of this nature.
Actually, the exact wording of most (if not all) bills like the recently failed one provides protection based upon sexual orientation. That means that a person could also not be fired for being (or being perceived as being) heterosexual, not just homosexual.
Anti-gay groups won't acknowledge that, though, because that fact completely destroys their lie that such bills are about providing "special rights".
Are you saying that the only way to know that someone is a homosexual is to know that they have engaged in sexual activities with members of the same gender?
There's the problem with your argument right there - either the state has the power to define who and what can enter into contracts, or it cannot. Not a single state in the union has, thus far, decided that two same-sex people can enter into this particular contract. Either the state has the right to determine who may and may not legally enter into a contract or it does not.
Oh dear. I'm not really where where you get this idea.
A contract is a legally binding agreement between two consenting parties. Inanimate objects cannot consent to anything, and as such they cannot enter contracts. Children cannot legally consent to anything without the permission of a parent or guardian, and as such they cannot enter legal contracts with few exceptions.
Two people of the same gender who are of legal age can enter most contracts. So now the state needs to justify denying the ability for them to enter into a marriage contract.
Are you ready to defend polygamy to get what you want?
Sure, if you can explain how existing marriage laws can be quickly adapted to allow for multiple partners.
I really hate the polygamy comparison because it demonstrates that the person making it has not, in any way, studied the relevant issues but is instead relying upon stupid analogies because they can't actually come up with a good reason to deny same-sex couples.
Allowing same sex couples would merely involve removing the existing gender restrictions of a marriage contract. That's it. All legal rights and benefits would translate directly with no alteration whatsoever to existing marriage law.
Allowing legal polygamous marriage would require a heavy retooling of existing marriage law. Suddenly you have to adapt to new inheritence concerns because a death might lead to multiple surviving spouses. Are they all entitled to an equal share of the estate? That would be a matter of whether or not it's a single person entering multiple contracts with their multiple spouses or if each added spouse creates a single group contract to which they become a new party. This also creates issues for custody issues, and what happens if one person wants to leave the marriage? Do they get divorced from a single individual, or do they end up completely outside of the group? There are a hell of a lot of issues for polygamous marriage that just aren't comparable to the one issue of allowing same-sex marriage.
Bringing up polygamy, animal marriage or marriage to inanimate objects only demonstrates that you don't actually have a good reason against same-sex marriage so you're bringing up irrelevant garbage in an attempt to distract from the real issue.
I can't explain the legal benefits one way or the other, probably because I see the legal implications of marriage as just a tiny portion of what marriage IS.
Not when you're discussing what the government does. Any other signifigance to marriage is applied by entities outside of the government, and the government has no business telling the parties involved (and by that I mean not only the married couple but also family members to whom the marriage might have some importance) exactly what that signifigance is.
One is a mechanical construct, the other is a biological organism.
You can get into specifics, but ultimately the reason is they are different.
No. I could get into specifics, but touching upon the most general aspect applicable to all cars and the most general aspect applicable to all camels and noting that the general defining aspect is fundamentally different for both makes going into specifics irrelevant.
But marriage is a special ceremony reserved for straight couples.
And why is this the case? Can you offer something more than BISS?
Why is that a bad thing, that a group gets to have something unique?
If "civil unions" with legal rights and benefits identical to those afforded opposite-sex couples were available to same-sex couples, I probably wouldn't argue. Unfortunately, the majority of those strongly fighting against same-sex marriage don't even want that much. The majority of those opposed to same-sex "marriage" -- at least those with political clout -- want to deny any legal protection available to same-sex couples, and in some cases (like Kansas and Virginia) deny even the existing options available.
I fight for the extreme because I know what the other extreme wants: the right to kill homosexuals on sight.
Um, sorry to burst your overly critical and factually incorrect bubble, but there was no analogy in there.
Oh, so you weren't even pretending to make an argument. You were just tossing out a non-sequitur so that you could dismiss those who don't accept your position as fat as "ignorant".
Why should I attempt to have a conversation with someone who twists reality to suit their argument?
It's hard to find intelligent conversation partners when you insist that you're right and refuse to support your position by delcaring people who don't accept it to be morons without further discussion.
Why isn't a car a camel? The answer is the same for your question.
Okay, do you have an explanation that does not involve an inane false analogy where you attempt to compare two contractual arrangements that technically differ only in a physiological aspect of the parties involved and two physical objects?
Slashdot Mirror
It recognizies that there isn't always a "natural" answer to the problems that science faces given the current information. In fact, looking for natural answers can be very unscientific.
Science is the study of nature. How, exactly, do you study the supernatural with a tool designed only to study nature?
Answer: you can't. As soon as you start exploring non-natural events, you leave the realm of science. The Kansas Board of Education is attempting to redefine science because they don't like its scope, and in so doing they will wreck the level of science education in their state and make it a global laughingstock.
Hi, I am a Christian but for the majority of my life I was not.
Which does not say anything whatsoever about your level of knowledge on any particular subject, so why do you bring it up?
I have quite a few friends who are Ph.D's or currently doing there's.
And their Ph.Ds are in what, exactly?
The common viewpoint I see with them is that they believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution.
What barrier exists that prevents "micro evolution" from accumulating into "macro evolution".
Also, again, for what are they obtaining a Ph.D? If they're getting a degree in astrophysics, then their opinion on biological evolution is worth squat.
The book looks at the scientific truth that points towards God.
An example, perhaps?
. It is interesting to learn that incorrect information (e.g. Stanley Miller Experienment
What incorrect information is being presented about the Stanley Miller Experiment?
Ernst Haeckel's drawing of Embryos) that has been scientifically proven to be wrong is still included in textbooks as factual information.
Are Hacekel's drawings being presented as examples of embryos, or do the textbooks in question actually try to claim that they are evidence for his failed hypothesis?
They shouldn't be used at all, because they're known to be so flawed, but the real dishonesty would be if the textbook was claiming that his hypothesis had been supported with evidence. Thus far, whenever creationists bring up Haeckel's drawings in textbooks, they are unable to demonstrate that the intent of the inclusion of the drawings was to show support for Haeckel's hypothesis.
I might also add that Hacekel's hypothesis was rejected by his contemporaries, who were themselves biologists and they were not Biblical creationists. (I find it important to note that when creationists trot out "frauds" within evolution science, they neglect to point out that the fraids were always exposed by other evolution scientists, and never by creationists, who have yet to actually expose a single evolution fraud
Another interesting thing to research is the Cambrian Explosion. All of a sudden a ton of new species came into existence where there were no creatures similar to them previously.
It helps if some of your arguments aren't already well-addressed before you make them.
That means they do understand the advantages of science.
Not really. They've just finally come to understand that they can't get away with badmouthing science because science does carry with it a certain level of credibility, so now their goal is to claim that their own crackpot notions are themselves "scientific". Don't confuse that with thinking that they actually know what science is, how it works or why it is better.
I keep hearing this "moral relativism" thing brought up as pure, unfettered evil. Why so?
They don't like the implications. That means that it's false.
The real problem here is that those who hold to the viewpoint that "moral relativism" is evil are actually themselves outright sociopaths. The only reason that they don't break down and engage in all kinds of cruel and unspeakable acts is the fear that if they do, they'll be punished and tortured by an omnipotent "law-giver". They also believe that everyone is as ethically deficient as they are, so they assume that if people don't have this fear of an omnipotent law-giver, they'll turn to unabashed malice.
anecdotal evidence? It's not that there is no evidence, just not scientific-method evidence.
Old stories and anecdotes are not "evidence", they are stories and anecdotes. The myths of the ancient Greeks are not "evidence" for the existence of Zeus or Hera, they are -- at best -- evidence that at one time people believed in the existence of Zeus and Hera.
You are appealing to logical fallacies and calling it evidence for your position.
Why is contemporary evolutionary theory the only one I should consider? I can present any number of hypotheses that could alternately explain how the earth came to be, some using the existing evidence and others that do not. Why are you unwilling to consider those?
Unless you have evidence for your "alternative explanations", why should I consider them?
How's this. The entire universe was created as-is last Thursday by the cat Queen Maeve. Are you willing to explore this alternative origins hypothesis? If not, why not? If so...well, what exactly can you do with it?
What is this "something"? How did it cause the universe to exist? What properties have we observed that make it plausable that a) this "something" can exist or could have existed and b) this "something" had the ability to create universes?
Since they have a completely different purpose, this could not have happened by design.
This isn't true. It can easily be argued that the designer made it look like that on purpose.
In fact, that's what's wrong with "ID Theory". Absolutely anything can be attributed to "design". There is absolutely no hypothetical observation that could be used as an example of what the universe would be like if there was no design. It's completely non-falsifiable, and that is why it is not science and the only people who claim that it is are either ignorant or lying.
You admit yourself that evolution could be dead wrong
Evolution occurs. It's been observed. That's a fact, you cannot deny it unless you want to deny reality.
The overall Theory of Evolution "could" be wrong, but that is true of any scientific explanation. Absolutely no scientific explanation is set in stone. Your objection to evolution here should indicate that you should also object to every other type of science being taught in schools, and yet I don't see many people championing that cause. I wonder why. It's almost as though their objections to evolution are a bogus smokescreen to cover up their real problem: they're uncomfortable when observed reality contradicts their interpretation of religious teachings.
OK, but your anti-religion preaching has no place in schools either
Of course. When a creationist has no valid explanation for why evolution doesn't belong in schools, shout "It's anti-religion"!
It's so easy for a creationist to fall back onto lying.
Actually, worse. With this statement.
To be a hypothesis an idea must be falsifiable - otherwise it's "just" a theory.
A "theory" in science is more certain than a hypothesis. An explanation must be falsifiable to be scientific. If it isn't falsifiable, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, much less a theory. A theory is what happens when a hypothesis is subject to repeated testing, inquiry and revision until it is a broad-based explanation for observed phenomenon.
And this is the problem in Kansas. A bunch of morons who have no idea of what science actually is are trying to argue that evolution isn't scientific, or that "Intelligent Design" is.
I was thinking of setting up a little web sight for people who don't understand when their supposed to use the variants of the homonyms that you listed, as its really annoying to see such misuse. It makes me want to shout, "Your all a bunch of idiots!"
MplayerPlugin destabilizes Firefox for me. Sure, the video plays fine, but later my browser will spontaneously crash. I can do it regularly and reliably if I choose File->Save at any time after MplayerPlugin has run.
Sorry. I didn't know how to clarify that I meant specifically "Republican vs. Democrat".
There might be politics involved, but if the politics involved are based upon political affiliation, then the people assigned to the task are incompetent in the first place, regardless of who they support.
Wow. You really didn't RTFA, or you're just a shameless liar.
People are being purged from a completely non-partisan position. This is for a technical conference. There are no politics involved here. Whether or not someone likes Bush has no bearing on their ability to serve competently at this conference. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING THIS EXTREME.
This isn't a good thing. Bush supporters should not be cheering this, it makes them look like brainless automotons who don't analyze a single aspect of the administration's polities yet stand behind them 100%.
Of course, Godwin assumes the belief of Nazism as a historical and socio-political singularity, to which no reasonable comparison is ever appropriate. This attitude allows latter-day neo-fascism to flourish unimpeeded. All parallels drawn with fascist and Nazi examples are derisable as hyperbole and hate-mongering.
I don't quite buy this. I think that the principle behind Godwin's Law is that if the only argument you have is to compare your opponents to Nazis, then you don't really have an argument; you're just throwing out a nasty comment in order to smear the other guy.
Nazisim isn't bad simply because it's Nazism. It's bad because the individual components that make it up are the antithesis of freedom and personal liberty. If you have a regime that has some elements in common with Nazi Germany, then the best way to argue against the regime is to point out these elements and explain that they are bad and why they are bad, rather than just blinding drawing a comparison to Nazism because 1) You could just be making it up (if you can't get specific about how the regime in question is identical to Nazi Germany) and 2) You can't necessarily say that every single aspect of the Nazi regime was necessarily bad (ie: they had a military; their leaders were carbon-based bipedal life forms).
And it's just as likely for a well-behaved Christian to get fired if their liberal, bigoted boss finds out what they've been doing on their own time. What's your point?
The difference is that federal law prohibits discrimination of this nature.
Actually, the exact wording of most (if not all) bills like the recently failed one provides protection based upon sexual orientation. That means that a person could also not be fired for being (or being perceived as being) heterosexual, not just homosexual.
Anti-gay groups won't acknowledge that, though, because that fact completely destroys their lie that such bills are about providing "special rights".
How would anyone know?
Are you saying that the only way to know that someone is a homosexual is to know that they have engaged in sexual activities with members of the same gender?
There's the problem with your argument right there - either the state has the power to define who and what can enter into contracts, or it cannot. Not a single state in the union has, thus far, decided that two same-sex people can enter into this particular contract. Either the state has the right to determine who may and may not legally enter into a contract or it does not.
Oh dear. I'm not really where where you get this idea.
A contract is a legally binding agreement between two consenting parties. Inanimate objects cannot consent to anything, and as such they cannot enter contracts. Children cannot legally consent to anything without the permission of a parent or guardian, and as such they cannot enter legal contracts with few exceptions.
Two people of the same gender who are of legal age can enter most contracts. So now the state needs to justify denying the ability for them to enter into a marriage contract.
Are you ready to defend polygamy to get what you want?
Sure, if you can explain how existing marriage laws can be quickly adapted to allow for multiple partners.
I really hate the polygamy comparison because it demonstrates that the person making it has not, in any way, studied the relevant issues but is instead relying upon stupid analogies because they can't actually come up with a good reason to deny same-sex couples.
Allowing same sex couples would merely involve removing the existing gender restrictions of a marriage contract. That's it. All legal rights and benefits would translate directly with no alteration whatsoever to existing marriage law.
Allowing legal polygamous marriage would require a heavy retooling of existing marriage law. Suddenly you have to adapt to new inheritence concerns because a death might lead to multiple surviving spouses. Are they all entitled to an equal share of the estate? That would be a matter of whether or not it's a single person entering multiple contracts with their multiple spouses or if each added spouse creates a single group contract to which they become a new party. This also creates issues for custody issues, and what happens if one person wants to leave the marriage? Do they get divorced from a single individual, or do they end up completely outside of the group? There are a hell of a lot of issues for polygamous marriage that just aren't comparable to the one issue of allowing same-sex marriage.
Bringing up polygamy, animal marriage or marriage to inanimate objects only demonstrates that you don't actually have a good reason against same-sex marriage so you're bringing up irrelevant garbage in an attempt to distract from the real issue.
I can't explain the legal benefits one way or the other, probably because I see the legal implications of marriage as just a tiny portion of what marriage IS.
Not when you're discussing what the government does. Any other signifigance to marriage is applied by entities outside of the government, and the government has no business telling the parties involved (and by that I mean not only the married couple but also family members to whom the marriage might have some importance) exactly what that signifigance is.
Participating in sexual activities with members of the same gender.
So what about homosexuals who are not sexually active? Is it impossible to discriminate against them?
Is a car a camel?
No.
Why not?
One is a mechanical construct, the other is a biological organism.
You can get into specifics, but ultimately the reason is they are different.
No. I could get into specifics, but touching upon the most general aspect applicable to all cars and the most general aspect applicable to all camels and noting that the general defining aspect is fundamentally different for both makes going into specifics irrelevant.
But marriage is a special ceremony reserved for straight couples.
And why is this the case? Can you offer something more than BISS?
Why is that a bad thing, that a group gets to have something unique?
If "civil unions" with legal rights and benefits identical to those afforded opposite-sex couples were available to same-sex couples, I probably wouldn't argue. Unfortunately, the majority of those strongly fighting against same-sex marriage don't even want that much. The majority of those opposed to same-sex "marriage" -- at least those with political clout -- want to deny any legal protection available to same-sex couples, and in some cases (like Kansas and Virginia) deny even the existing options available.
I fight for the extreme because I know what the other extreme wants: the right to kill homosexuals on sight.
Um, sorry to burst your overly critical and factually incorrect bubble, but there was no analogy in there.
Oh, so you weren't even pretending to make an argument. You were just tossing out a non-sequitur so that you could dismiss those who don't accept your position as fat as "ignorant".
Why should I attempt to have a conversation with someone who twists reality to suit their argument?
It's hard to find intelligent conversation partners when you insist that you're right and refuse to support your position by delcaring people who don't accept it to be morons without further discussion.
Why isn't a car a camel? The answer is the same for your question.
Okay, do you have an explanation that does not involve an inane false analogy where you attempt to compare two contractual arrangements that technically differ only in a physiological aspect of the parties involved and two physical objects?