One of them has to go. Either everyhing in a closed system becomes more disorderly, and the big bang is bunk, or the bing bang created a crapload of order out of disorder, and the law of entropy is bunk. You just can't have it both ways.
Either that, or your understanding of the statements of Big Bang theory are in error. IE, the Big Bang theory does not claim that the Big Bang resulted in order from chaos. Rather, the singularity from which everything spring was an incredibly ordered setup, and everything became more and more disordered from there.
1)When, in my post, did I attempt to force my beliefs into any classroom you or any of your offspring attend? (Keeping in mind that right now, children across our country learn ONLY evolution in school, regardless of what their parents believe).
You didn't. I never said that you personally had done anything.
2)What agenda are you asserting me to have?
I didn't say that you had an agenda. I was speaking of creationists who do have one. That's why the pronoun that I used was of the "them" variety, and never directed toward "you", and I specifically made comments regarding to the actions of a group without claiming that they represented the group as a whole.
Did I affiliate myself with ANY group that offends you?
No, you didn't, which is why I never directly attacked you.
Until now, at least. I will begin with this attack: you are presumptious and reactionary.
I base my claim on the fact that you assume that my post was all about you, when in fact it was not.
Did I even try to argue that you should believe what I believe?
No, I made comments regarding the attitude and actions of vocal creationists who try to shout out evolution and force creationism into science classrooms. I never even made an assumption about what you believe or what you do beyond what you have directly stated.
(The only thing I can can think of is that you checked the sites I provided for reference as to what I believe and disagreed with them-- but as I said, I will not be drawn into a debate of beliefs: you have the right to your beliefs, and so do I!)
And, as I said, I don't care if you want to believe absurd things. You asked why "That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation?" I was providing my answer, which is that I don't actually care if you believe something bizarre, I only care when people who believe these bizarre things try to push them into science classrooms and in no part of my response did I assert that you were a part of that group.
Firstly, I was not putting forth the example of the chair as an argument of any kind-- thereby nullifying your assertion that it is a fallacious statement (perhaps YOU should look up the meaning). I was using the chair ILLUSTRATION to show that, in order to believe something (anything), one must have faith that it is true. You BELIEVE a god does not exist-- therefor, you have faith that the knowledge to which you have access proves this to you.
And I was pointing out that you are equivocating two different concepts of "faith".
I have "faith" that the earth will continue moving around the sun in such a way that it will be dark tonight and sunny (even if cloudy) tomorrow. This "faith" is based upon previous experience that it's been like that every day as well as a fundamental understanding of the physical laws that cause this to happen in the first place. This is not like the "faith" that a god exists, and to assert that the former faith is just like the latter is to fall to the fallacy of equivocation.
Another illustration might be: You most likely believe (as do I) that there is gold in Fort Knox. Why do we believe this? It is unlikely that either of us have been able to see or touch it. But we are told it is there, by people who have. We have faith that there is gold in Fort Knox because we choose to believe the evidence presented to us that it is there.
Actually, I've been to Fort Knox.
Moreover, the claim that gold exists within Fort Knox is not what I would consider to be an extraodrinary claim. For one, I know what gold is. Secondly, I know how it could be stored, so the idea that gold is stored in a place called Fort Knox is not entirely far-fetched. I also know that if there is gold in Fort Knox, there would be people with direct access to this information, and I can't imag
Like, "How did I get here? Well, the Bible says that God created all of this, but I don't believe that nonsense, so I'll have to come up with my own conclusion!"
That is a perfect example of how creationists wrongly believe that theories such as the Big Bang come about.
How in the world the "Big Bang" is granted the status of "theory" in light of this definition is beyond me.
The Big Bang theory makes, through its stating of the events that it claims occured, predictions regarding the nature of the universe that have, thus far, borne out through testing.
Another example being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states, concerning the law of entropy: "in any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase.", which, ironically, refutes every hypothesis/theory of evolution out there. The question the evolutionist needs to ask himself is: "which am I going to disregard? The law of Thermodynamics, or the theories and hypothesis surrounding evolution/The "Big Bang"/etc.?"
You are aware that "Law" in science is not in a heirarchy above "theory", correct? Laws are not "advanced theories" and theories never graduate to law.
Moreover, why are you bringing up the Laws of Thermodynamics here? Are you one of those people who asserts, despite constant refutation, that certain established scientific theories violate the second law of thermodynamics?
A chimera or pegasus wouldn't falsify evolution. It could just be that we didn't find similar fossils yet. Evolution isn't hurt at all as a hypothesis.
Actually, a chimera -- a REAL chimera, not an assertion of one (I heard of one creationist who insisted that the duck-billed platypus was a chimera) would present real problems for evolution, because there's no proposed mechanism for getting genetic sequences of that type in that order all of a sudden.
You also ignored the issue of an organism radically different from all other organisms. One of the strengths of the theory of evolution is genetic similarity across species. Finding something with DNA radically different than other life forms, especially those morphologically similar to it, would present serious problems for the theory.
Moreover, there's the issue of fossils. If you found a rabbit fossil in precambrian strata, you'd send the theory of evolution toppling on its head.
Likewise, if somebody finds a perfectly reasonable unguided process that could have produced cilia, Dr. Michael Behe's claims in [u]Darwin's Black Box[/u] would be null and void. Evolution would have more explaining power, and ID would have less.
How would this take away from ID's explaining power?
I've seen this line of reasoning before. Somehow ID or creationism would be weakened if it could be demonstrated that certain organism features could come about naturally. This, of course, exposes the full weakness of ID/creationism. First, you're making the mistake of assuming that just because a feature could have come about naturally it means that it must have come about naturally, when in fact the "designer" might have just made it seem that way. Secondly, you're showing that ID is nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn in argument from incredulity by tossing out evolution, saying "if evolution is false, I can't think of any other explanation, so this one must be true". Logical fallacy. But I'm not surprised, such logical fallacies are common amongst creationists.
Most of the scientists who are supporting unguided evolution could not be religious, because if they were they would be contradicting themselves.
Why?
And what is "unguided evolution"? Explain it in scientific terms.
The most extreme position on evolution mandates that it was the source of all life, and that a creator was not necessary.
No, evolution is not the "source of all life", it is the origin of the species. Evolution can not and does not account for the first life forms. Moreover, it is impossible for any scientific theory to make any statements regarding the existence of a "creator". The claim that evolution outright denies the existence of a creator or even a generic "designer" is an outright, but common, creationist lie.
Is unguided evolution/materialism/whatever you personally call it falsifiable?
Evolution != materialism. This is another creationist lie.
And evolution is falsifiable. So next question?
What we can do with ID is take individual entities and look at their complexity to see whether or not the odds are on them arising independently or requiring a creator. If it looks like no creator would be needed for that entity, then we don't count that as evidence.
So what is your criteria? How do you determine when something is not "designed"?
On the other hand, whenever it looks like something might take more than evolution or other natural forces to create, we ususally hear that "oh, we'll find the missing link later".
Got any more strawmen to present?
If anything, ID is more falsifiable than unguided evolution because at least ID'ers are performing tests that could fail to uphold their feelings on that matter.
Really? Then answer my previous quesiton: what potential observation would falsify ID?
Why are the people pushing abiogenesis/evolution mostly athiests?
Evolution did not develop this way, rather it was developed by many scientists who asked the basic question, "What is the origin of life?"
Actually, evolution developed out of observations of organisms that led to the conclusion that they shared a common ancestor, which coincidentally provided an answer to the question "What is the origin of the species?". It does not address the question of the ultimate origins of life, however, though many creationists who are ignorant of the theory insist that it does.
You'll have to define this "God" first before it has meaning.
You're the one assuming an entity. The burden of proof is upon you to show that it exists, not upon him to show that it does not.
and that we all crawled out of a pond of primal soup.
I don't recall him saying that.
Either way, we all begin with a presumption, and everything we attempt to prove with science beyond that point (when it comes to this particular issue) is influenced by that.
Er, no. Science starts with one single assumption: the properties of the natural universe are consistent and unchanging. That's it. Everything else is a conclusion.
I understand that it's common for creationists to assume that evolution, abiogenesis and other non-theistic explanations for various origins is part of a vast conspiracy to push your God out of the picture, but you're just going to have to let go of your paranoia. Science has concluded what it has concluded because that's where the evidence points so far, not because it's trying to "prove" that all gods are nonexistent.
Has anyone actually, without a shadow of a doubt, aside from any theories, proven that there was a "Big Bang"?
No theory is science is ever proven. Your question is meaningless.
I've had evolutionists tell me, when confronted with all of the flip-flopping that has taken place on this subject, that science is "always in a state of flux".
It would be because science is ready to admit that it's wrong at any moment, and it must be ready to reshape itself should contradictory evidence come to light, unlike religion which tends to stay exactly the same no matter how often or how thorougly it is refuted by observed reality.
Because what they call "science" is based largely upon theory, and not upon solid fact.
And if I had a nickel for every time a creationist misused the word "theory"...
Since they weren't there to actually witness the event, they begin with a presumption, and work backwards from the present day in an attempt to prove the theory.
You are confusing science with creationism. Scientists observe the natural universe. The Big Bang is a conclusion borne out from observations of the universe, not a starting "guess" to which they have tried to retrofit all observations.
Again, I understand that this comes from the "conspiracy theory" mindeset that a lot of creationists seem to have. You'll just have to understand that we're not all out to destroy your religion, and we really can't help it when the universe doesn't conform to your holy text.
When they finally discover that their initial theory, their initial presumption couldn't possibly work, they fabricate another theory, and try again.
Again, you fail to understand the meaning of the word "theory". The best that they could fabricate is a hypothesis, and it would be discarded quickly if tests didn't bear out predictions that it made.
No one in recorded history has ever witnessed life spring out of a pool of dead goop, even under the most tightly controlled environments.
You're correct. So thus far abiogenesis is unobserved. Note that this has no bearing on the theories regarding the formation of the universe, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.
The whole "primal soup" theory, therefore, is just that; a theory, a presumption.
Wrong. It's not a theory, it's still in the hypothesis stage. That you continue to misuse terms indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of what you speak.
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (
This statement is false. Evolution makes no statements regarding the conditions of life or the universe in general, nor does it make any statements regarding how life ultimately came into existence.
Whoever wrote that site is either fundamentally ignorant regarding the theory of evolution and can not be taken seriously, or they are fundamentally dishonest in presenting the theory of evolution and should not be taken seriously.
I mean, really, if you can't get the fundamentals of what the theory says and what it doesn't say, why should you be believed on it at all?
That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation?
I don't have a problem with you believing something bizarre and absurd. I have a problem with creationists who deliberately misrepresent and outright lie about the study of evolution to "refute" the theory. I have a problem with creationists who claim that evolution covers things like the origin of the universe and the ultimate origins of life when arguing against it. I have a problem with creationists who want to shove a religious agenda into a science classroom. I have a problem with creationists who want to construct a bizarre non-scientific explanation for the origin of the species and demanding that it be given equal time.
It's not the beliefs of creationists that bother me, it's their desire to foist their non-scientific beliefs into science classrooms and their patent dishonesty when attempting to support their agenda.
Now please, spare me the fallacious arguments regarding "belief". I'm not so stupid as to believe that "belief" that a chair will support my weight is the same as belief in a god. Please look up the equivocation fallacy.
Ummm... I thought Natural Selection meant that there was no human intervention? See my next point.
You thought wrong. Natural selection is merely the process of a select genetic group of a population being more successful at passing on their genes due to an advantage provided by their genes within their given environment. If humans are controlling the breeding based upon what they think are "desirable" genetic traits, then humans have become an environmental factor. It's still natural selection.
You seem to be confused as to the nature of a theory. Theories in science are never proven. There is never a point where a scientist can look at a theory and say "Okay, we're absolutely certain of this, there is no possible way that this is false".
All theories in science are falsifiable, meaning that there is some hypothetical observation that could bring the whole theory crashing down. The strength in a theory is in predictions that it has made that have held up and tests for falsification that have thus far failed. However, no theory is ever fully "proven", by definition.
There is a lot of misunderstanding of the definition of "theory" (and also of "law") on the creation side of the debate, which is often reflected in their arguments ("If evolution is so solid, why is it still just a theory and not a law?!"). It doesn't help when we have people on the rational side presenting the same kinds of misunderstandings.
It certainly would not make ID more difficult to explain.
You're forgetting the first rule: EVERYTHING is evidence for creationism (or ID, when they don't want to admit that they're shilling for creationism). That life exists in a universe hostile to it is proof that there is a creator. That the universe is capable of sustaining life is proof that there is a creator. There is no potential observation about the universe that they will claim is not evidence for a creator.
A uniform and cohesive unifying set of physical laws with no contradictions amongst them would "require" a creator to have put such a perfect system of laws in place.
I can see, for example, that derivation of all physical constants from basic parameters like the number 4 ( being dimensionality of our space-time ) would somewhat undermine proponents of ID.
Could you explain how this could possibly have any bearing on ID?
I just thought that Lucas wanted the Anakin 'ghost' to look like the actor who plays Anakin in the second two movies. I didn't see it as an attempt to revert Anakin back to his younger self, and in fact it looked to me like they were trying to make Hayden look a bit older in the shot (though still not as old as he should have looked).
Before the "new Special Edition", the Anakin that showed up was what Lucas thought of how Anakin looked in life, pre-Vader. In this new one, since we've seen a distinctly different looking Anakin, Lucas decided to digitally insert the new, revised one.
I saw it as a dumb thing for Lucas to do, because it seemed unnecessary to me, but it didn't strike me as any more significant a change than the chaning out of the original Emperor with Ian McDiarmid in Empire.
There are torrents of the original movies available, ripped from the laserdisc editions-- DVD quality.
Er, if they were ripped from laserdisc, then they're laserdisc quality. The resolution may have been bumped up to DVD resolution, but the image quality of the movie itself will still be non-anamorphic laserdisc quality.
Ahh! the oystrich approach. This argument has already been rebuttled [slashdot.org] in this same thread, but keep true to the SPEWS spirit and do not take any accountability for your actions.
No, that wasn't a rebuttal. That was an attempt to assert that a gun store owner who sells a gun to a thirteen year old kid is guilty of murder. He might be guilty of a crime, but he's not the one who pulled the trigger and thus he's not the murderer. Moreover, comparing voluntary filtering of mail to a privately owned mailserver to murder is asinine.
Oh no, only us, liars and crime supporting ISP users.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
1st Paragraph, 2nd sentence: "Their blocklist includes entire states...". Gosh man, please tell me honestly, did you even read beyond the title?
Yes. "state" != "country". Moreover, somethingawful.com was venting and whining and throwing a massive temper tantrum because they didn't want to accept the fact that their ISP was the one at fault for the fact that no one wanted their mail. I take what they offer on that page with 1-pound grain of salt.
It seems to be you are a bit of a fanboy and SPEWS zealot. It's ok, you are free to use whatever you want to filter your mail. Hell, man, as far as I am concerned, you might as well redirect everything to/dev/null.
So I'm a SPEWS zealot because I correctly point out that they do not, in fact, block any mail whatsoever? I take it that only SPEWS zealots speak the truth about SPEWS, and that it's expected that all non-zealots lie?
I just googled for SPEWS, must of the stuff that came up were real jewels exposing the facts I mentioned above, but if you really insist on having them plastered on your face, let me help you out:
Your somethingawful.com link was a link to the news article where SA whined and bitched and moaned about SPEWS rather than focusing on the fact that their ISP is a crime-supporting cesspit from whom no one wants traffic, and it even it does not support your claim that SPEWS will block entire countries. In fact, none of the links have direct relevance to the bullet points that you mentioned.
I was right. You are nothing but a shameless liar. Not that I'm surprised. The most common attacks on SPEWS are based on outright lies.
Let's see, I already point out that SPEWS does not block anything, and now you claim that SPEWS will block "entire countries".
That would make you a liar.
without any consideration to the spam to ham ratio.
SPEWS lists IP ranges based upon the presence of a spammer and the amount of time that the spammer has remained connected on that IP address and continued to spam. Please give an example of SPEWS "blocking an entire country" (hint: you can't, because SPEWS doesn't block anything).
Their blacklist is poorly maintained, their policies regarding entry and removal from it is a joke and prone to verbal abuse. Even they advise upone their usage as experimental and not reliable enough for production.
A reference would be nice, though I'm not surprised that you didn't support this claim with evidence. After all, you already established earlier that you are a liar.
LOL. Spews is just as much a pain in the ass as the spammers themselves.
I notice that you didn't actually refute my statement that SPEWS blocks no one.
And I agree, SPEWS is a major pain in the ass. It's a big pain in the ass to scummy ISP management who would like to be able to host criminals without worrying that it will impact their ability to do business, and it is a pain in the ass to spammers who find themselves booted when their previously spam-friendly ISP finds themselves in SPEWS list. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Great Spews policy again. This is why nobody should use Spews. They arbitrarily block whole blocks of IP addresses with no regard to who is getting stomped on.
SPEWS blocks IP ranges only AFTER an ISP fails to kick off spammers for an extended period of time. This is because many spam-friendly ISPs just don't care if the spammers are blocked -- they'll often move the spammers to new IPs (which they can't do now because places like SPEWS will just block the old AND the new IPs) and move legitimate people into the blocked ones as human shields. SPEWS only lists non-spammer IPs because Savvis didn't take action against spammers in the first place -- specifically, SPEWS is listing the spam-friendly ISP's IP ranges, the "innocent parties" just happen to be renting IP space from known spam-supporting outfits. Savvis brought it upon themselves by making their IP space a cesspit from which no one wants traffic. That's their fault, stop blaming SPEWS for Savvis's bad decisions.
And SPEWS doesn't block anyone. That's a common spammer lie.
There's more to both sides.. I just don't have time to enlighten the masses on what a Good company does for it's customers vs what overzealous spam outfits can do to a Good companies customers.
Any ISP that openly supports spammers on their network is not a "Good company".
Savvis is being forced to terminate their spamming customers because they can no longer deny that they know about the spamming activity. Savvis has openly supported clients who have engaged in network abuse and even criminal activity.
Depends on who runs the blocks. On "professional" blocklists, like SPEWS, the listings should disappear as soon as it is confirmed that the spammers are gone (though -- despite the lies of a number of SPEWS-haters -- SPEWS itself does not block mail, the "blocks" would then disappear from the lists of those who filter with the lists provided by SPEWS). Other, more hard-line network admins might hold off a little while, perhaps waiting until a little after the heat death of the universe before removing Savvis IP entries.
Well, given that Savvis's customers (both their own and the ones they got from c&w) include people like Lycos and a few Federal agencies, that might not be such a good idea.
Why not? If I run an ISP, I am perfectly within my rights to block all traffic from Savvis's networks regardless of who is renting bandwidth from them.
Slashdot Mirror
One of them has to go. Either everyhing in a closed system becomes more disorderly, and the big bang is bunk, or the bing bang created a crapload of order out of disorder, and the law of entropy is bunk. You just can't have it both ways.
Either that, or your understanding of the statements of Big Bang theory are in error. IE, the Big Bang theory does not claim that the Big Bang resulted in order from chaos. Rather, the singularity from which everything spring was an incredibly ordered setup, and everything became more and more disordered from there.
1)When, in my post, did I attempt to force my beliefs into any classroom you or any of your offspring attend? (Keeping in mind that right now, children across our country learn ONLY evolution in school, regardless of what their parents believe).
You didn't. I never said that you personally had done anything.
2)What agenda are you asserting me to have?
I didn't say that you had an agenda. I was speaking of creationists who do have one. That's why the pronoun that I used was of the "them" variety, and never directed toward "you", and I specifically made comments regarding to the actions of a group without claiming that they represented the group as a whole.
Did I affiliate myself with ANY group that offends you?
No, you didn't, which is why I never directly attacked you.
Until now, at least. I will begin with this attack: you are presumptious and reactionary.
I base my claim on the fact that you assume that my post was all about you, when in fact it was not.
Did I even try to argue that you should believe what I believe?
No, I made comments regarding the attitude and actions of vocal creationists who try to shout out evolution and force creationism into science classrooms. I never even made an assumption about what you believe or what you do beyond what you have directly stated.
(The only thing I can can think of is that you checked the sites I provided for reference as to what I believe and disagreed with them-- but as I said, I will not be drawn into a debate of beliefs: you have the right to your beliefs, and so do I!)
And, as I said, I don't care if you want to believe absurd things. You asked why "That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation?" I was providing my answer, which is that I don't actually care if you believe something bizarre, I only care when people who believe these bizarre things try to push them into science classrooms and in no part of my response did I assert that you were a part of that group.
Firstly, I was not putting forth the example of the chair as an argument of any kind-- thereby nullifying your assertion that it is a fallacious statement (perhaps YOU should look up the meaning). I was using the chair ILLUSTRATION to show that, in order to believe something (anything), one must have faith that it is true. You BELIEVE a god does not exist-- therefor, you have faith that the knowledge to which you have access proves this to you.
And I was pointing out that you are equivocating two different concepts of "faith".
I have "faith" that the earth will continue moving around the sun in such a way that it will be dark tonight and sunny (even if cloudy) tomorrow. This "faith" is based upon previous experience that it's been like that every day as well as a fundamental understanding of the physical laws that cause this to happen in the first place. This is not like the "faith" that a god exists, and to assert that the former faith is just like the latter is to fall to the fallacy of equivocation.
Another illustration might be: You most likely believe (as do I) that there is gold in Fort Knox. Why do we believe this? It is unlikely that either of us have been able to see or touch it. But we are told it is there, by people who have. We have faith that there is gold in Fort Knox because we choose to believe the evidence presented to us that it is there.
Actually, I've been to Fort Knox.
Moreover, the claim that gold exists within Fort Knox is not what I would consider to be an extraodrinary claim. For one, I know what gold is. Secondly, I know how it could be stored, so the idea that gold is stored in a place called Fort Knox is not entirely far-fetched. I also know that if there is gold in Fort Knox, there would be people with direct access to this information, and I can't imag
Like, "How did I get here? Well, the Bible says that God created all of this, but I don't believe that nonsense, so I'll have to come up with my own conclusion!"
That is a perfect example of how creationists wrongly believe that theories such as the Big Bang come about.
How in the world the "Big Bang" is granted the status of "theory" in light of this definition is beyond me.
The Big Bang theory makes, through its stating of the events that it claims occured, predictions regarding the nature of the universe that have, thus far, borne out through testing.
Another example being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states, concerning the law of entropy: "in any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase.", which, ironically, refutes every hypothesis/theory of evolution out there. The question the evolutionist needs to ask himself is: "which am I going to disregard? The law of Thermodynamics, or the theories and hypothesis surrounding evolution/The "Big Bang"/etc.?"
You are aware that "Law" in science is not in a heirarchy above "theory", correct? Laws are not "advanced theories" and theories never graduate to law.
Moreover, why are you bringing up the Laws of Thermodynamics here? Are you one of those people who asserts, despite constant refutation, that certain established scientific theories violate the second law of thermodynamics?
A chimera or pegasus wouldn't falsify evolution. It could just be that we didn't find similar fossils yet. Evolution isn't hurt at all as a hypothesis.
Actually, a chimera -- a REAL chimera, not an assertion of one (I heard of one creationist who insisted that the duck-billed platypus was a chimera) would present real problems for evolution, because there's no proposed mechanism for getting genetic sequences of that type in that order all of a sudden.
You also ignored the issue of an organism radically different from all other organisms. One of the strengths of the theory of evolution is genetic similarity across species. Finding something with DNA radically different than other life forms, especially those morphologically similar to it, would present serious problems for the theory.
Moreover, there's the issue of fossils. If you found a rabbit fossil in precambrian strata, you'd send the theory of evolution toppling on its head.
Likewise, if somebody finds a perfectly reasonable unguided process that could have produced cilia, Dr. Michael Behe's claims in [u]Darwin's Black Box[/u] would be null and void. Evolution would have more explaining power, and ID would have less.
How would this take away from ID's explaining power?
I've seen this line of reasoning before. Somehow ID or creationism would be weakened if it could be demonstrated that certain organism features could come about naturally. This, of course, exposes the full weakness of ID/creationism. First, you're making the mistake of assuming that just because a feature could have come about naturally it means that it must have come about naturally, when in fact the "designer" might have just made it seem that way. Secondly, you're showing that ID is nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn in argument from incredulity by tossing out evolution, saying "if evolution is false, I can't think of any other explanation, so this one must be true". Logical fallacy. But I'm not surprised, such logical fallacies are common amongst creationists.
Most of the scientists who are supporting unguided evolution could not be religious, because if they were they would be contradicting themselves.
Why?
And what is "unguided evolution"? Explain it in scientific terms.
The most extreme position on evolution mandates that it was the source of all life, and that a creator was not necessary.
No, evolution is not the "source of all life", it is the origin of the species. Evolution can not and does not account for the first life forms. Moreover, it is impossible for any scientific theory to make any statements regarding the existence of a "creator". The claim that evolution outright denies the existence of a creator or even a generic "designer" is an outright, but common, creationist lie.
Is unguided evolution/materialism/whatever you personally call it falsifiable?
Evolution != materialism. This is another creationist lie.
And evolution is falsifiable. So next question?
What we can do with ID is take individual entities and look at their complexity to see whether or not the odds are on them arising independently or requiring a creator. If it looks like no creator would be needed for that entity, then we don't count that as evidence.
So what is your criteria? How do you determine when something is not "designed"?
On the other hand, whenever it looks like something might take more than evolution or other natural forces to create, we ususally hear that "oh, we'll find the missing link later".
Got any more strawmen to present?
If anything, ID is more falsifiable than unguided evolution because at least ID'ers are performing tests that could fail to uphold their feelings on that matter.
Really? Then answer my previous quesiton: what potential observation would falsify ID?
Why are the people pushing abiogenesis/evolution mostly athiests?
They are? Please justify this assertion.
Evolution did not develop this way, rather it was developed by many scientists who asked the basic question, "What is the origin of life?"
Actually, evolution developed out of observations of organisms that led to the conclusion that they shared a common ancestor, which coincidentally provided an answer to the question "What is the origin of the species?". It does not address the question of the ultimate origins of life, however, though many creationists who are ignorant of the theory insist that it does.
And he's assuming that there is no God
You'll have to define this "God" first before it has meaning.
You're the one assuming an entity. The burden of proof is upon you to show that it exists, not upon him to show that it does not.
and that we all crawled out of a pond of primal soup.
I don't recall him saying that.
Either way, we all begin with a presumption, and everything we attempt to prove with science beyond that point (when it comes to this particular issue) is influenced by that.
Er, no. Science starts with one single assumption: the properties of the natural universe are consistent and unchanging. That's it. Everything else is a conclusion.
I understand that it's common for creationists to assume that evolution, abiogenesis and other non-theistic explanations for various origins is part of a vast conspiracy to push your God out of the picture, but you're just going to have to let go of your paranoia. Science has concluded what it has concluded because that's where the evidence points so far, not because it's trying to "prove" that all gods are nonexistent.
Has anyone actually, without a shadow of a doubt, aside from any theories, proven that there was a "Big Bang"?
No theory is science is ever proven. Your question is meaningless.
I've had evolutionists tell me, when confronted with all of the flip-flopping that has taken place on this subject, that science is "always in a state of flux".
It would be because science is ready to admit that it's wrong at any moment, and it must be ready to reshape itself should contradictory evidence come to light, unlike religion which tends to stay exactly the same no matter how often or how thorougly it is refuted by observed reality.
Because what they call "science" is based largely upon theory, and not upon solid fact.
And if I had a nickel for every time a creationist misused the word "theory"...
Since they weren't there to actually witness the event, they begin with a presumption, and work backwards from the present day in an attempt to prove the theory.
You are confusing science with creationism. Scientists observe the natural universe. The Big Bang is a conclusion borne out from observations of the universe, not a starting "guess" to which they have tried to retrofit all observations.
Again, I understand that this comes from the "conspiracy theory" mindeset that a lot of creationists seem to have. You'll just have to understand that we're not all out to destroy your religion, and we really can't help it when the universe doesn't conform to your holy text.
When they finally discover that their initial theory, their initial presumption couldn't possibly work, they fabricate another theory, and try again.
Again, you fail to understand the meaning of the word "theory". The best that they could fabricate is a hypothesis, and it would be discarded quickly if tests didn't bear out predictions that it made.
No one in recorded history has ever witnessed life spring out of a pool of dead goop, even under the most tightly controlled environments.
You're correct. So thus far abiogenesis is unobserved. Note that this has no bearing on the theories regarding the formation of the universe, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.
The whole "primal soup" theory, therefore, is just that; a theory, a presumption.
Wrong. It's not a theory, it's still in the hypothesis stage. That you continue to misuse terms indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of what you speak.
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (
This statement is false. Evolution makes no statements regarding the conditions of life or the universe in general, nor does it make any statements regarding how life ultimately came into existence.
Whoever wrote that site is either fundamentally ignorant regarding the theory of evolution and can not be taken seriously, or they are fundamentally dishonest in presenting the theory of evolution and should not be taken seriously.
I mean, really, if you can't get the fundamentals of what the theory says and what it doesn't say, why should you be believed on it at all?
That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation?
I don't have a problem with you believing something bizarre and absurd. I have a problem with creationists who deliberately misrepresent and outright lie about the study of evolution to "refute" the theory. I have a problem with creationists who claim that evolution covers things like the origin of the universe and the ultimate origins of life when arguing against it. I have a problem with creationists who want to shove a religious agenda into a science classroom. I have a problem with creationists who want to construct a bizarre non-scientific explanation for the origin of the species and demanding that it be given equal time.
It's not the beliefs of creationists that bother me, it's their desire to foist their non-scientific beliefs into science classrooms and their patent dishonesty when attempting to support their agenda.
Now please, spare me the fallacious arguments regarding "belief". I'm not so stupid as to believe that "belief" that a chair will support my weight is the same as belief in a god. Please look up the equivocation fallacy.
The Big Bang theory is just a theory. It's a guess, based on what is observed.
If I had a nickel for every time a creationist misused the word "theory"...
I want evidence that one species became another.
Missed this, sorry for the double-post:
Ummm... I thought Natural Selection meant that there was no human intervention? See my next point.
You thought wrong. Natural selection is merely the process of a select genetic group of a population being more successful at passing on their genes due to an advantage provided by their genes within their given environment. If humans are controlling the breeding based upon what they think are "desirable" genetic traits, then humans have become an environmental factor. It's still natural selection.
You seem to be confused as to the nature of a theory. Theories in science are never proven. There is never a point where a scientist can look at a theory and say "Okay, we're absolutely certain of this, there is no possible way that this is false".
All theories in science are falsifiable, meaning that there is some hypothetical observation that could bring the whole theory crashing down. The strength in a theory is in predictions that it has made that have held up and tests for falsification that have thus far failed. However, no theory is ever fully "proven", by definition.
There is a lot of misunderstanding of the definition of "theory" (and also of "law") on the creation side of the debate, which is often reflected in their arguments ("If evolution is so solid, why is it still just a theory and not a law?!"). It doesn't help when we have people on the rational side presenting the same kinds of misunderstandings.
It certainly would not make ID more difficult to explain.
You're forgetting the first rule: EVERYTHING is evidence for creationism (or ID, when they don't want to admit that they're shilling for creationism). That life exists in a universe hostile to it is proof that there is a creator. That the universe is capable of sustaining life is proof that there is a creator. There is no potential observation about the universe that they will claim is not evidence for a creator.
A uniform and cohesive unifying set of physical laws with no contradictions amongst them would "require" a creator to have put such a perfect system of laws in place.
I can see, for example, that derivation of all physical constants from basic parameters like the number 4 ( being dimensionality of our space-time ) would somewhat undermine proponents of ID.
Could you explain how this could possibly have any bearing on ID?
I just thought that Lucas wanted the Anakin 'ghost' to look like the actor who plays Anakin in the second two movies. I didn't see it as an attempt to revert Anakin back to his younger self, and in fact it looked to me like they were trying to make Hayden look a bit older in the shot (though still not as old as he should have looked).
Before the "new Special Edition", the Anakin that showed up was what Lucas thought of how Anakin looked in life, pre-Vader. In this new one, since we've seen a distinctly different looking Anakin, Lucas decided to digitally insert the new, revised one.
I saw it as a dumb thing for Lucas to do, because it seemed unnecessary to me, but it didn't strike me as any more significant a change than the chaning out of the original Emperor with Ian McDiarmid in Empire.
There are torrents of the original movies available, ripped from the laserdisc editions-- DVD quality.
Er, if they were ripped from laserdisc, then they're laserdisc quality. The resolution may have been bumped up to DVD resolution, but the image quality of the movie itself will still be non-anamorphic laserdisc quality.
Ahh! the oystrich approach. This argument has already been rebuttled [slashdot.org] in this same thread, but keep true to the SPEWS spirit and do not take any accountability for your actions.
No, that wasn't a rebuttal. That was an attempt to assert that a gun store owner who sells a gun to a thirteen year old kid is guilty of murder. He might be guilty of a crime, but he's not the one who pulled the trigger and thus he's not the murderer. Moreover, comparing voluntary filtering of mail to a privately owned mailserver to murder is asinine.
Oh no, only us, liars and crime supporting ISP users.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
1st Paragraph, 2nd sentence: "Their blocklist includes entire states...". Gosh man, please tell me honestly, did you even read beyond the title?
Yes. "state" != "country". Moreover, somethingawful.com was venting and whining and throwing a massive temper tantrum because they didn't want to accept the fact that their ISP was the one at fault for the fact that no one wanted their mail. I take what they offer on that page with 1-pound grain of salt.
It seems to be you are a bit of a fanboy and SPEWS zealot. It's ok, you are free to use whatever you want to filter your mail. Hell, man, as far as I am concerned, you might as well redirect everything to /dev/null.
So I'm a SPEWS zealot because I correctly point out that they do not, in fact, block any mail whatsoever? I take it that only SPEWS zealots speak the truth about SPEWS, and that it's expected that all non-zealots lie?
I just googled for SPEWS, must of the stuff that came up were real jewels exposing the facts I mentioned above, but if you really insist on having them plastered on your face, let me help you out:
Your somethingawful.com link was a link to the news article where SA whined and bitched and moaned about SPEWS rather than focusing on the fact that their ISP is a crime-supporting cesspit from whom no one wants traffic, and it even it does not support your claim that SPEWS will block entire countries. In fact, none of the links have direct relevance to the bullet points that you mentioned.
I was right. You are nothing but a shameless liar. Not that I'm surprised. The most common attacks on SPEWS are based on outright lies.
SPEWS will block entire countries,
Let's see, I already point out that SPEWS does not block anything, and now you claim that SPEWS will block "entire countries".
That would make you a liar.
without any consideration to the spam to ham ratio.
SPEWS lists IP ranges based upon the presence of a spammer and the amount of time that the spammer has remained connected on that IP address and continued to spam. Please give an example of SPEWS "blocking an entire country" (hint: you can't, because SPEWS doesn't block anything).
Their blacklist is poorly maintained, their policies regarding entry and removal from it is a joke and prone to verbal abuse. Even they advise upone their usage as experimental and not reliable enough for production.
A reference would be nice, though I'm not surprised that you didn't support this claim with evidence. After all, you already established earlier that you are a liar.
LOL. Spews is just as much a pain in the ass as the spammers themselves.
I notice that you didn't actually refute my statement that SPEWS blocks no one.
And I agree, SPEWS is a major pain in the ass. It's a big pain in the ass to scummy ISP management who would like to be able to host criminals without worrying that it will impact their ability to do business, and it is a pain in the ass to spammers who find themselves booted when their previously spam-friendly ISP finds themselves in SPEWS list. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Great Spews policy again. This is why nobody should use Spews. They arbitrarily block whole blocks of IP addresses with no regard to who is getting stomped on.
SPEWS blocks IP ranges only AFTER an ISP fails to kick off spammers for an extended period of time. This is because many spam-friendly ISPs just don't care if the spammers are blocked -- they'll often move the spammers to new IPs (which they can't do now because places like SPEWS will just block the old AND the new IPs) and move legitimate people into the blocked ones as human shields. SPEWS only lists non-spammer IPs because Savvis didn't take action against spammers in the first place -- specifically, SPEWS is listing the spam-friendly ISP's IP ranges, the "innocent parties" just happen to be renting IP space from known spam-supporting outfits. Savvis brought it upon themselves by making their IP space a cesspit from which no one wants traffic. That's their fault, stop blaming SPEWS for Savvis's bad decisions.
And SPEWS doesn't block anyone. That's a common spammer lie.
There's more to both sides.. I just don't have time to enlighten the masses on what a Good company does for it's customers vs what overzealous spam outfits can do to a Good companies customers.
Any ISP that openly supports spammers on their network is not a "Good company".
Yep, Savvis is an awesome provider -- if you're a spammer.
Savvis is being forced to terminate their spamming customers because they can no longer deny that they know about the spamming activity. Savvis has openly supported clients who have engaged in network abuse and even criminal activity.
Depends on who runs the blocks. On "professional" blocklists, like SPEWS, the listings should disappear as soon as it is confirmed that the spammers are gone (though -- despite the lies of a number of SPEWS-haters -- SPEWS itself does not block mail, the "blocks" would then disappear from the lists of those who filter with the lists provided by SPEWS). Other, more hard-line network admins might hold off a little while, perhaps waiting until a little after the heat death of the universe before removing Savvis IP entries.
Well, given that Savvis's customers (both their own and the ones they got from c&w) include people like Lycos and a few Federal agencies, that might not be such a good idea.
Why not? If I run an ISP, I am perfectly within my rights to block all traffic from Savvis's networks regardless of who is renting bandwidth from them.
This only happened after Savvis was told that their entire network was about to be e-mail blocked.
Which confuses me greatly. There are ISPs in the world that haven't already blocked all of Savvis at the router level?