This is hardly an idea unique to young-earth creationism. Indeed, nearly all religions who recognise gods believe (at least one of them) created the earth/universe.
the role of assumptions (worldview) in interpretation of evidence
Confirmation bias is a well-known effect, particularly in scientific circles, and pretty much by definition not something that only the "opposite" site can be guilty of. Hence my sig:P
unprovable assumptions in the application of some radiation dating methods
Which are those? The ones I know of (like the differing amounts of atmospheric C14 throughout history) are calibrated against, and shouldn't give an error of more than a couple of hundred years out of 20.000 or so (verified with ice core samples containing wood). That's already 3 times the biblical age of the earth, never mind what happens when you use (and compare) any of the other radiometric dating methods that all put the age of the earth squarely above 10.000.
The idea that radioactive decay was different in the past might actually be true, but again that's been shown to be only a few % at best (with the exception of Rhenium 187), and is not going to turn 4 billion into 6000.
the idea that the Earth itself could be much younger that theorised
Yes, I've seen those ideas, but I've only seen biblical evidence (mostly arguing about the interpretation of "yom", or day). I'm sorry, but biblical evidence just isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe in the literal thruth of the bible.
As someone with some years of theological study behind me, the usual anti-religion and anti-bible rants bore me to tears with their general lack of rational study or often even reasonable intelligence.
Yes, but let's not lump the sarcastic one-liners of Skeptic's Annotated Bible in the same category as, for instance, errancy.org, who makes a genuine attempt to analyze biblical errors in the proper context.
Making an informed decision on what we believe to be true is a basic start to that end.
Yes, but this implies a willingness to change your believes when new information comes to light.
how many times has the atheist House been outsmarted by a patient who has faith?
Oh please. How boring would that show be if everything happened for logical and fully understood reasons. Of course there's going to be people who disagree with his analytical approach, and of course they're going to be right every once in a while.
Or would you prefer it if he was somehow always magically correct?
It was a completely honest question. I can see there might be a (small) performance gain by using SPs, but in terms of security (which was the subject under discussion) they're identical IMO.
Who's talking about destroying anything? The OP was talking about moving cargo by bike to battle unemployment. Surely that's useful, in some small way.
It is only a fallacy from a direct economic standpoint. There's still something to be said for the idea that keeping someone employed will increase (or at least not decrease) his skills needed for a later job, when there's less actual unemployment.
There's also all kinds of social benefits to not having a load of people hanging around all day. See the suburbs of Paris for an example.
I'd say both the islamic terrorists and the Westboro baptists use a more literal interpretation of their respective scripture than the mainstream, and are less prone to let common sense or decency alter that interpretation without a factual basis.
If you think the Bible/Quran is the literal truth rather than a spiritual guideline, then yes, god hates fags, and wants you to kill non-believers.
It's not "simply not knowing whether a deity exists", it's also (for all self-professed agnostics I've spoken about it, and I suspect it's the same for you) not basing you life's choices on the possible existance of a deity.
If you don't know for sure a deity exists, but still pray to it or follow its supposed rulebook, I would call you weakly religious rather than agnostic.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, throwing agnostics in the same group as atheists seems fitting to me.
If my understanding of orbital mechanics is correct, it would settle in a more excentric orbit, as long as the perigee isn't inside the earth's atmosphere, but it would swing right back to the point where you threw it.
To get it into a proper lower orbit you need to apply a force at least twice.
Slashdot Mirror
the idea that God created
This is hardly an idea unique to young-earth creationism. Indeed, nearly all religions who recognise gods believe (at least one of them) created the earth/universe.
the role of assumptions (worldview) in interpretation of evidence
Confirmation bias is a well-known effect, particularly in scientific circles, and pretty much by definition not something that only the "opposite" site can be guilty of. Hence my sig :P
unprovable assumptions in the application of some radiation dating methods
Which are those? The ones I know of (like the differing amounts of atmospheric C14 throughout history) are calibrated against, and shouldn't give an error of more than a couple of hundred years out of 20.000 or so (verified with ice core samples containing wood). That's already 3 times the biblical age of the earth, never mind what happens when you use (and compare) any of the other radiometric dating methods that all put the age of the earth squarely above 10.000.
The idea that radioactive decay was different in the past might actually be true, but again that's been shown to be only a few % at best (with the exception of Rhenium 187), and is not going to turn 4 billion into 6000.
the idea that the Earth itself could be much younger that theorised
Yes, I've seen those ideas, but I've only seen biblical evidence (mostly arguing about the interpretation of "yom", or day). I'm sorry, but biblical evidence just isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe in the literal thruth of the bible.
As someone with some years of theological study behind me, the usual anti-religion and anti-bible rants bore me to tears with their general lack of rational study or often even reasonable intelligence.
Yes, but let's not lump the sarcastic one-liners of Skeptic's Annotated Bible in the same category as, for instance, errancy.org, who makes a genuine attempt to analyze biblical errors in the proper context.
Making an informed decision on what we believe to be true is a basic start to that end.
Yes, but this implies a willingness to change your believes when new information comes to light.
I've noticed quite a few people here on /. who quietly support young Earth ideas.
How do you know people support those ideas when they're quiet about it?
Could you name a few of those ideas?
+1 Depressing
Whenever I hear someone mention depopulation as a good idea I shudder. Just HOW do you suppose you are going to accomplish that?
A death ray powered by a solar wind collector, obviously.
It's right there in the summary, sheesh.
How is it diffferent from a regular ATM, apart from the loot being less liquid?
how many times has the atheist House been outsmarted by a patient who has faith?
Oh please. How boring would that show be if everything happened for logical and fully understood reasons. Of course there's going to be people who disagree with his analytical approach, and of course they're going to be right every once in a while.
Or would you prefer it if he was somehow always magically correct?
Interestingly, most of the top results for "muhammed cartoons" in the Halal search engine prominently display the Danish cartoons.
Wooosh
Or... use a termostat in the lab?
I don't know, does his set have an invertible, associative operation that provides closure?
your bullets quite often will be _vaporized_ during the collision.
Problem solved, no?
It was a completely honest question. I can see there might be a (small) performance gain by using SPs, but in terms of security (which was the subject under discussion) they're identical IMO.
What is wrong with using regular parameterized queries instead of SPs?
What does that have to do with pacifists?
Straw-men scare you? Really?
Who's talking about destroying anything? The OP was talking about moving cargo by bike to battle unemployment. Surely that's useful, in some small way.
It is only a fallacy from a direct economic standpoint. There's still something to be said for the idea that keeping someone employed will increase (or at least not decrease) his skills needed for a later job, when there's less actual unemployment.
There's also all kinds of social benefits to not having a load of people hanging around all day. See the suburbs of Paris for an example.
I was talking specifically about the crazy copy protection schemes of yore the grand-parent mentioned, not all DRM.
And yes, the "can't last" is wishful thinking. Replace it with "shouldn't last" if that makes it more accurate.
I actually feel proud about getting on your nerves so much, with so little effort.
It didn't last, because, among other things, people always found ways around it
The real reason it can't last is that it annoys paying customers more than freeloading pirates.
Virusesii, obviously.
I'd say both the islamic terrorists and the Westboro baptists use a more literal interpretation of their respective scripture than the mainstream, and are less prone to let common sense or decency alter that interpretation without a factual basis.
If you think the Bible/Quran is the literal truth rather than a spiritual guideline, then yes, god hates fags, and wants you to kill non-believers.
It's not "simply not knowing whether a deity exists", it's also (for all self-professed agnostics I've spoken about it, and I suspect it's the same for you) not basing you life's choices on the possible existance of a deity.
If you don't know for sure a deity exists, but still pray to it or follow its supposed rulebook, I would call you weakly religious rather than agnostic.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, throwing agnostics in the same group as atheists seems fitting to me.
This only skips the file system, not whatever the firmware does.
it would probably just settle into a lower orbit.
If my understanding of orbital mechanics is correct, it would settle in a more excentric orbit, as long as the perigee isn't inside the earth's atmosphere, but it would swing right back to the point where you threw it.
To get it into a proper lower orbit you need to apply a force at least twice.