Would adding "We are not sure if Evolution is correct but its generally understood to be the leading scientific thought." be dangerous
It would be appropriate to teach that science is a process of discovery and that evolution is the best theory we have that fits the facts as we know them. To teach that there are no competing theories at this time. To teach that although incompetent design (ID - see human spine for an example of incompetent design)/creation is presented by its followers as a competing theory they have not yet been able to offer any evidence to show design (for instance if they could present some of the design principles used and predict what should find elsewhere in nature if those design principles are true). To teach that nature as it exists is unequivocally not the work of a perfect designer.
Just because we could one day find out that evolution is actually wrong does not make creation right. Creation is a negative theory - any mistake on the part of science is deemed as proof for evolution.
"Your experiments are wrong? You made a mistake, not that the science is wrong."
At school? My experience at school was that there was never enough to time. They never allowed for the possibility of repeating an experiment. And school in general can be quite pedantic - too much rote learning and not enough thinking. At university we did an experiment to measure the acceleration due to gravity. My partner and I got around 7m/s^2 (it is actually more like 9.8). We redid the experiment using different equipment, but at the same location, and came out to almost the same value. We showed the lab assistant, did a couple of test runs at the same location and sure enough kept getting the same measurements. He gave us a high mark because we had repeated our experiment, and demonstrated our results. Given more time we could have performed other experiments to determine the cause of the anomaly. No-one declared us wrong or incompetent, merely that more research would be needed to pursue the matter.
The fact is that scientists are just as rabid retards concerning evolution as the id/creationalists are
Scientists are hard to convince, especially when it is a theory they developed, but they will be convinced if you can present evidence. Creation believers have yet to present a single shred of evidence. Their arguments revolve around pointing out a gap in scientific knowledge and declaring that it proves their idea of creation is true. If creation believers can actually present real evidence they will utlimately prevail.
What he is saying, I believe, is that it is the getting together and saying good things that is helping, and the good marriage is not because you're praying to a god that then makes your marriage better.
Science covers more than we can perceive, if by perceive you mean with our unassisted senses. There could be something extrasensory, e.g. ultraviolet light, however there can be nothing supernatural or paranormal. Anything that exists is de facto natural and normal, even a god. And if that god interacts with the world, then that interaction must ultimately be detectable by some scientific means. God must be observable if it exists, otherwise it cannot be interacting with matter, and if it cannot interact with matter it effectively doesn't exist for us. As another example if the soul exists then we must be able to build equipment that can detect, measure and track it - the soul afterall is something that interacts with matter.
dentifying your beliefs with a group leads to a mob mentality
That is one of the problems with organised religion. Perhaps atheists would also be behaving as a mob, beating up believers and burning down churches, if they were an organisation.
A discussion of how much fun you had at church teaching the kids in your Sunday school class makes people nervous
It doesn't make me nervous. It does make me mad that these people are allowed to teach children that this sort of thing is absolute truth. I have no objection to teaching children about religion in general, in fact it would be a good thing because they'd learn from an early age that there is no one, true religion, they all claim to be, and that there are many overlaps and similarities, as well as differences between the various religions (e.g. it makes no sense for Christians to viciously attack a religion as eastern, when Christianity is actually a near east religion and they themselves have adopted many of their beliefs from the relgions they are attacking).
when I try to imagine what it would be like to believe in a benevolent god, I think it would be such an amazing thing I don't see how any part of my life would be unaffected. I think that if someone really believed in god it would be obvious without even asking
Most people, whatever their beliefs, are happy to go quietly about their lives without making a huge fuss.
Perhaps we can consider religious people feeling like they are outcasts and have to be secretive as well-deserved payback for two thousand years of brutal oppression of non-believers.
Many atheists are every bit as nasty as some fundamentalist
Some atheists. Except in general atheists make no pretense of being virtuous. They are not hypocrates pretending they are followers of the ultimate force of good while acting in a manner that can only be called evil.
Atheists, i.e. those who have never seen any convincing evidence for the existence of a god or gods, attack religion because they are painfully aware of the evil brought into the world by religious belief. And as for charitable works, anyone who is only being charitable because of their religion is not in fact genuinely charitable. I do charitable things merely because I want to help other people, not because I follow a religion. I have repeatedly seen Christian leaders try to imply that there'd be little or no charity in the world if not for religion.
I believe in evolution because I see the evidence and believe that the universe was set up to allow it
However of course there must have been something that set up the world the maker of our universe inhabits, and then something that set up the universe the maker of the maker inhabits, and so on. The maker can't just be and if it is, then why do we need it as part of our explanantion when we can just stop at saying matter has just always existed in some form or another and the universe we inhabit happened to come about on its own? Adding a creator as the source of the matter adds nothing.
Overall there isn't much militant fundamentalism in the UK.
My impression of the US is that while perhaps most people will say they believe in a god if asked, most will also say they do not attend church or pray. Then again an all-seeing, all-knowing god really shouldn't have any use for prayer.
The term atheist did, and still does to many, mean what the term agnostic is now taken to mean. That is that we see no evidence of a god, but would obviously accept such if it were to be demonstrated to be true.
Religious belief is almost always the result of brainwashing from an early age. It is based on emotion, completely separate from critical analysis. You'll find few, if any, believers who have ever truly applied any criital thinking to their religious belief. If they did it would fall apart, particularly logically inconsistent notions like the Jesus myth. Religion is also a coping mechanism - I don't begrudge them it though, life would certainly be simpler if I could just assign all evil to some nasty beast, all good to some wonderful entity that is also going to look out for and help me. But then I'd be lying to myself.
I'd be perfectly happy for them to teach creation theory, if such a theory existed, but there is no creation theory.
First they need to present verifiable evidence of the existence of the designer. Since, as far as I know, we don't know from where the material that made up the big bang came, we will not require them to explain the origin of their designer, even though such a complex living thing must, by their own argument, have been designed.
I think many people cling to the creation idea because it makes us seem important, whereas in evolution we're an interesting and complex animal, but not intrinsically unique or special.
There is one thing which can be stated unequivocally - nature is not perfect, therefore the alleged desginer is also not perfect, because a perfect, all-powerful designer must be capable of producing a perfect design.
The studios will be able to impose much longer, higher resolution adverts for themselves. For most studios there is nothing dumber than advertising themselves like their name matters in any way. Of course if they had their way your player would explode if you didn't watch the 20 minute advert for the studio.
We definitely don't need any more of the advertising fluff they call extras on most DVD releases.
It isn't the 192kHz, it is the increased bit depth that makes the difference.
that is only by mixing together the odd and even lines (progressive DVD) which also effectively halves the framerate.
Drivel. The frame rate is 29.97 whether interlaced or progressive.
DVDs should have been made with progressive 24fps video, leaving the frame rate conversion and video format to the player.
Would you settle for 640x480 on your computer
Actually DVDs look really good upscaled on a large computer monitor (watching close enough that the effective display size is the same as a TV).
I've no doubt that HD, like the new audio formats, is going to appeal to the purist fringe, but will it appeal to the general viewer who has only quite recently given up VHS? These people will have to replace their TV and player for something where the average person is likely to say they're quite happy with what they have now. To even sell the HD players will have to play DVD, and the discs will have to be priced at the same level. It also remains to be seen how customer-hostile the DRM will be.
In fact it has been mentioned that for older movies we don't want to have any higher resolution than that offered by DVD, which is already showing all the defects on those old prints.
And the eyesight issue is also an important one. Mine is already showing signs of age-related decline. I've even watched some of my DVDs projected onto a large screen. The image showed some fuzziness, but overall nothing that made me feel I absolutely must have higher quality. VHS was just horrible though. Even my 60 year old mom can see the difference.
One thing I do agree with is that self-defense should be a basic right. If someone attacks me in the street I should be able to retaliate to protect myself and my property or if someone enters my home without my permission for whatever reason I should be able to eject them, with force if necessary. Neither situation necessarily requires a gun, in fact in most situations where I've needed to protect myself martial arts and resourceful use of objects around me has been a much quicker solution.
I found the UK prohibition on self-defense and the carrying of any object that might be used for self-defense to be utterly ludicrous. More so because with welfare no-one can even claim they need to steal for food. Some need to steal for drugs, but then they must focus their thefts on the morons who think the drug laws are a good idea. If they break into my home or attack me on the street they can expect me to fight back, the law be damned, which will result in a visit to the hospital for them. Friends who did get attacked simply beat the hell out of their attackers, then left the scene as quickly as possible. If they had remained they would have been arrested and prosecuted for defending themselves. In these cases the actual attackers will quite probably walk free.
I am always amazed at how it seems reasonable to some people that being accused of a traffic offense is treated differently to other offenses.
It doesn't surprise me that the government treats it differently, it is a major cash cow for them and the private companies that run the cameras for profit.
Of course we all know that criminals consider gun laws to be sacred and would never break them.
If you're a criminal one of the easiest things to do is buy a gun, and that includes criminals in Britain. The only people who have guns are the goons in the Met, and the goons in the local gangs. Ordinary people have the privilege to have two chances to get shot.
It should be simple, a particular task requires certain characteristics. If a job requires you to be big and strong, then it should be open to anyone who is big and strong regardless whether they're male or female.
We must always remember that alcohol is a drug, it just happens to be legal. Any time someone uses the term drug user or abuser we must remember to mentally include all alcohol users.
You simply can't protect everybody all of the time. Unfortunately life is not safe. Trying to make the world and life safe is a pointless pursuit. Freedom means risk and responsibility. Some people have the odd notion that it means safety.
Needle Park is hardly a valid example of actual drug legalization. Creating a concentrated free for all zone with no law enforcement is not legalization. Go try it with alcohol - come back and tell us how wonderfully it went. The result would be that you'd have to come to the conclusion that alcohol should be banned.
Needle Park almost looks like it was set up to prove legalization is a bad idea. And now it gets used as though it is in fact a real example of legalization.
That's right someone who has eaten or slept for days is going to stealthily and steadily sneak up on someone. Methampetamine is a fairly potent drug that can keep sleep at bay, but isn't magical. The longer you take it the more debilitated you get - the guy might be awake, but he surely isn't particularly competent.
And why would you need to sneak up on a child - since they don't know better and an adult can outrun them you can just rush up to them and blow their brains out.
One thing though, why would Timmy want to do this when his drugs are available for reasonable prices at a local shop and he is in no way ostracised for exercising his right to take drugs? Contrary to popular mythology methampetamine does not turn ordinary sane people into psychos, no matter how much they take.
You radically underestimate the power of people fighting an armed struggle. They will definitely suffer casualties well beyond their military oppressors, but they have greater numbers and the longer they fight the less they have to lose, eventually becoming effectively impossible to defeat.
And so they should. He ran on the claim that the Democrats were the cause of various problems and promised to fix it. He's a liar of course. They're all liars. Instead of doing what really needs to be done they are more concerned with pointing fingers at each other, and jousting for re-election. The entire thing is a mess, and as long as re-election is their primary focus the system will stay a mess. These aren't public servants, they're self-servants.
Slashdot Mirror
Still in no way has anything to do with whether life is possible. Does mean life on earth will ultimately be wiped out one way or another.
God's laws are written down in The Holy Bible
Actually only a tiny, tiny subset are included in that book. See the Torah for a more comprehensive list. See the Quran for another small subset.
Would adding "We are not sure if Evolution is correct but its generally understood to be the leading scientific thought." be dangerous
It would be appropriate to teach that science is a process of discovery and that evolution is the best theory we have that fits the facts as we know them. To teach that there are no competing theories at this time. To teach that although incompetent design (ID - see human spine for an example of incompetent design)/creation is presented by its followers as a competing theory they have not yet been able to offer any evidence to show design (for instance if they could present some of the design principles used and predict what should find elsewhere in nature if those design principles are true). To teach that nature as it exists is unequivocally not the work of a perfect designer.
Just because we could one day find out that evolution is actually wrong does not make creation right. Creation is a negative theory - any mistake on the part of science is deemed as proof for evolution.
"Your experiments are wrong? You made a mistake, not that the science is wrong."
At school? My experience at school was that there was never enough to time. They never allowed for the possibility of repeating an experiment. And school in general can be quite pedantic - too much rote learning and not enough thinking. At university we did an experiment to measure the acceleration due to gravity. My partner and I got around 7m/s^2 (it is actually more like 9.8). We redid the experiment using different equipment, but at the same location, and came out to almost the same value. We showed the lab assistant, did a couple of test runs at the same location and sure enough kept getting the same measurements. He gave us a high mark because we had repeated our experiment, and demonstrated our results. Given more time we could have performed other experiments to determine the cause of the anomaly. No-one declared us wrong or incompetent, merely that more research would be needed to pursue the matter.
The fact is that scientists are just as rabid retards concerning evolution as the id/creationalists are
Scientists are hard to convince, especially when it is a theory they developed, but they will be convinced if you can present evidence. Creation believers have yet to present a single shred of evidence. Their arguments revolve around pointing out a gap in scientific knowledge and declaring that it proves their idea of creation is true. If creation believers can actually present real evidence they will utlimately prevail.
What he is saying, I believe, is that it is the getting together and saying good things that is helping, and the good marriage is not because you're praying to a god that then makes your marriage better.
Science covers more than we can perceive, if by perceive you mean with our unassisted senses. There could be something extrasensory, e.g. ultraviolet light, however there can be nothing supernatural or paranormal. Anything that exists is de facto natural and normal, even a god. And if that god interacts with the world, then that interaction must ultimately be detectable by some scientific means. God must be observable if it exists, otherwise it cannot be interacting with matter, and if it cannot interact with matter it effectively doesn't exist for us. As another example if the soul exists then we must be able to build equipment that can detect, measure and track it - the soul afterall is something that interacts with matter.
dentifying your beliefs with a group leads to a mob mentality
That is one of the problems with organised religion. Perhaps atheists would also be behaving as a mob, beating up believers and burning down churches, if they were an organisation.
A discussion of how much fun you had at church teaching the kids in your Sunday school class makes people nervous
It doesn't make me nervous. It does make me mad that these people are allowed to teach children that this sort of thing is absolute truth. I have no objection to teaching children about religion in general, in fact it would be a good thing because they'd learn from an early age that there is no one, true religion, they all claim to be, and that there are many overlaps and similarities, as well as differences between the various religions (e.g. it makes no sense for Christians to viciously attack a religion as eastern, when Christianity is actually a near east religion and they themselves have adopted many of their beliefs from the relgions they are attacking).
when I try to imagine what it would be like to believe in a benevolent god, I think it would be such an amazing thing I don't see how any part of my life would be unaffected. I think that if someone really believed in god it would be obvious without even asking
Most people, whatever their beliefs, are happy to go quietly about their lives without making a huge fuss.
Perhaps we can consider religious people feeling like they are outcasts and have to be secretive as well-deserved payback for two thousand years of brutal oppression of non-believers.
Many atheists are every bit as nasty as some fundamentalist
Some atheists. Except in general atheists make no pretense of being virtuous. They are not hypocrates pretending they are followers of the ultimate force of good while acting in a manner that can only be called evil.
Atheists, i.e. those who have never seen any convincing evidence for the existence of a god or gods, attack religion because they are painfully aware of the evil brought into the world by religious belief. And as for charitable works, anyone who is only being charitable because of their religion is not in fact genuinely charitable. I do charitable things merely because I want to help other people, not because I follow a religion. I have repeatedly seen Christian leaders try to imply that there'd be little or no charity in the world if not for religion.
I believe in evolution because I see the evidence and believe that the universe was set up to allow it
However of course there must have been something that set up the world the maker of our universe inhabits, and then something that set up the universe the maker of the maker inhabits, and so on. The maker can't just be and if it is, then why do we need it as part of our explanantion when we can just stop at saying matter has just always existed in some form or another and the universe we inhabit happened to come about on its own? Adding a creator as the source of the matter adds nothing.
Overall there isn't much militant fundamentalism in the UK.
My impression of the US is that while perhaps most people will say they believe in a god if asked, most will also say they do not attend church or pray. Then again an all-seeing, all-knowing god really shouldn't have any use for prayer.
But neither am I an atheist; I'm agnostic
The term atheist did, and still does to many, mean what the term agnostic is now taken to mean. That is that we see no evidence of a god, but would obviously accept such if it were to be demonstrated to be true.
Religious belief is almost always the result of brainwashing from an early age. It is based on emotion, completely separate from critical analysis. You'll find few, if any, believers who have ever truly applied any criital thinking to their religious belief. If they did it would fall apart, particularly logically inconsistent notions like the Jesus myth. Religion is also a coping mechanism - I don't begrudge them it though, life would certainly be simpler if I could just assign all evil to some nasty beast, all good to some wonderful entity that is also going to look out for and help me. But then I'd be lying to myself.
we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected
:-)
In other words you're neither members of the BNP nor readers of The Daily Mail
I'd be perfectly happy for them to teach creation theory, if such a theory existed, but there is no creation theory.
First they need to present verifiable evidence of the existence of the designer. Since, as far as I know, we don't know from where the material that made up the big bang came, we will not require them to explain the origin of their designer, even though such a complex living thing must, by their own argument, have been designed.
I think many people cling to the creation idea because it makes us seem important, whereas in evolution we're an interesting and complex animal, but not intrinsically unique or special.
There is one thing which can be stated unequivocally - nature is not perfect, therefore the alleged desginer is also not perfect, because a perfect, all-powerful designer must be capable of producing a perfect design.
The studios will be able to impose much longer, higher resolution adverts for themselves. For most studios there is nothing dumber than advertising themselves like their name matters in any way. Of course if they had their way your player would explode if you didn't watch the 20 minute advert for the studio.
We definitely don't need any more of the advertising fluff they call extras on most DVD releases.
It isn't the 192kHz, it is the increased bit depth that makes the difference.
that is only by mixing together the odd and even lines (progressive DVD) which also effectively halves the framerate.
Drivel. The frame rate is 29.97 whether interlaced or progressive.
DVDs should have been made with progressive 24fps video, leaving the frame rate conversion and video format to the player.
Would you settle for 640x480 on your computer
Actually DVDs look really good upscaled on a large computer monitor (watching close enough that the effective display size is the same as a TV).
I've no doubt that HD, like the new audio formats, is going to appeal to the purist fringe, but will it appeal to the general viewer who has only quite recently given up VHS? These people will have to replace their TV and player for something where the average person is likely to say they're quite happy with what they have now. To even sell the HD players will have to play DVD, and the discs will have to be priced at the same level. It also remains to be seen how customer-hostile the DRM will be.
In fact it has been mentioned that for older movies we don't want to have any higher resolution than that offered by DVD, which is already showing all the defects on those old prints.
And the eyesight issue is also an important one. Mine is already showing signs of age-related decline. I've even watched some of my DVDs projected onto a large screen. The image showed some fuzziness, but overall nothing that made me feel I absolutely must have higher quality. VHS was just horrible though. Even my 60 year old mom can see the difference.
One thing I do agree with is that self-defense should be a basic right. If someone attacks me in the street I should be able to retaliate to protect myself and my property or if someone enters my home without my permission for whatever reason I should be able to eject them, with force if necessary. Neither situation necessarily requires a gun, in fact in most situations where I've needed to protect myself martial arts and resourceful use of objects around me has been a much quicker solution.
I found the UK prohibition on self-defense and the carrying of any object that might be used for self-defense to be utterly ludicrous. More so because with welfare no-one can even claim they need to steal for food. Some need to steal for drugs, but then they must focus their thefts on the morons who think the drug laws are a good idea. If they break into my home or attack me on the street they can expect me to fight back, the law be damned, which will result in a visit to the hospital for them. Friends who did get attacked simply beat the hell out of their attackers, then left the scene as quickly as possible. If they had remained they would have been arrested and prosecuted for defending themselves. In these cases the actual attackers will quite probably walk free.
I am always amazed at how it seems reasonable to some people that being accused of a traffic offense is treated differently to other offenses.
It doesn't surprise me that the government treats it differently, it is a major cash cow for them and the private companies that run the cameras for profit.
Of course we all know that criminals consider gun laws to be sacred and would never break them.
If you're a criminal one of the easiest things to do is buy a gun, and that includes criminals in Britain. The only people who have guns are the goons in the Met, and the goons in the local gangs. Ordinary people have the privilege to have two chances to get shot.
It should be simple, a particular task requires certain characteristics. If a job requires you to be big and strong, then it should be open to anyone who is big and strong regardless whether they're male or female.
We must always remember that alcohol is a drug, it just happens to be legal. Any time someone uses the term drug user or abuser we must remember to mentally include all alcohol users.
You simply can't protect everybody all of the time. Unfortunately life is not safe. Trying to make the world and life safe is a pointless pursuit. Freedom means risk and responsibility. Some people have the odd notion that it means safety.
Needle Park is hardly a valid example of actual drug legalization. Creating a concentrated free for all zone with no law enforcement is not legalization. Go try it with alcohol - come back and tell us how wonderfully it went. The result would be that you'd have to come to the conclusion that alcohol should be banned.
Needle Park almost looks like it was set up to prove legalization is a bad idea. And now it gets used as though it is in fact a real example of legalization.
That's right someone who has eaten or slept for days is going to stealthily and steadily sneak up on someone. Methampetamine is a fairly potent drug that can keep sleep at bay, but isn't magical. The longer you take it the more debilitated you get - the guy might be awake, but he surely isn't particularly competent.
And why would you need to sneak up on a child - since they don't know better and an adult can outrun them you can just rush up to them and blow their brains out.
One thing though, why would Timmy want to do this when his drugs are available for reasonable prices at a local shop and he is in no way ostracised for exercising his right to take drugs? Contrary to popular mythology methampetamine does not turn ordinary sane people into psychos, no matter how much they take.
You radically underestimate the power of people fighting an armed struggle. They will definitely suffer casualties well beyond their military oppressors, but they have greater numbers and the longer they fight the less they have to lose, eventually becoming effectively impossible to defeat.
And so they should. He ran on the claim that the Democrats were the cause of various problems and promised to fix it. He's a liar of course. They're all liars. Instead of doing what really needs to be done they are more concerned with pointing fingers at each other, and jousting for re-election. The entire thing is a mess, and as long as re-election is their primary focus the system will stay a mess. These aren't public servants, they're self-servants.