Sorry, you have to choose whether it's ok to legislate morality. I'd prefer to avoid it myself, but unfortunately I guess that's just another set of morals, right?
I agree with you in the sense that both parties are ideological in why they want certain laws passed. What's funny is that the topic is about "not politicizing non-scientific ideologies" when in all reality this is a political activist organization - and are politicizing science (or what they consider science, which is debatable)!
"Legislating Morality" is very much misunderstood, however. All laws have a moral basis. You just can't make people "moral" through laws. I heard a better phrase - "You can't legislate virtue"
You are aware that you have just insulted my Gods and Goddesses? How dare you call my Gods FALSE! I on the other would never call your God false.
If I see them, I will explain my position to them.;-)
Christians have only stopped killing others because they are "infidels" for about 200 years.
In my country, that is a REALLY long time!
I find it interesting that the Muslims are in there 16th century. When christianity where in there 16th century the Spanish inquisition was killing anyone with an own opinion and Germany was right in the protestant vs. catholic war. If Charles Darwin had been born in the 16th century he would have been burned on the stake right away.
They are considered disobedient, and have also repented (as a church or religious group) for their actions. My guess is that it will be a while before that happens with the Muslims.
It is true that the Universal Church (called the Body of Christ) is a work in progress and we have not yet come to the unity of the faith, so I can understand the issues you bring up - but I think the real point is that the are Christian groups that do actually stand up and condemn actions by fascist "christians" and such. I would like to see such condemnation by Muslim leaders who do not support terrorism. I am not hearing it.
Prehaps you should replace all "Christians" in your text with "modern Christians".
I did think of writing "True Christians," but thought that would be redundant, as I am not talking about the disobedient, weak, or immature Christians - or the pretend Christians that get on the news supporting "separation of Church and State." (You can't separate the Christianity from the Christian no matter how hard you try).
I don't know what else to tell you, and I hope you can understand what I am saying. It has been a pleasure discussing this with you. May God bless you!
The reason there is a commandment about not worshiping other gods, is that they are FALSE gods, and not worth worshiping. No benefit to the worshiper at all, since pieces of wood, metal, or paper can't be there for you like a REAL God. And of course there are the unclean spirits, which can pretend to be gods, but really aren't either. They can put on a great show none the less.
Religious zealots who kill others because they are infidels are not Christians - they are Muslims.
Christians also do not FORCE their beliefs on anyone, they are sharing a way out of trouble with them. The weapons Christians use in religious activity are spiritual - fasting, prayer and supplication and even preaching. Natural weapons such as military force are used for national defense (pre-emptive, reactive, or otherwise). It is OK to fight. Turn the other cheek means let them hit you twice because you can take it, not cower in fear and give in ALL the time. Just make sure it wasn't an accident and your enemy knows what he is doing when he is doing it.
I agree that there are some who have misread the Bible and have been disobedient to God. That doesn't change the Truth, however.
Excellent Answer! This is one of two possibilities I was expecting. The other, which I thought was the most obvious, are the Israelites, who gave us the Bible.
So the true answer to the original question is that "embracing science" is no way to ensure the longevity of a society. I am not saying throw out science, but, rather keep it in it's place (not at the top of the food chain, as the Atheists are screaming). There is a whole lot more to life than scientific analysis.
"Those who call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"
1). The quality and importance of an ancient text is directly related to the number of manuscripts or copies in existence. Compare the Bible (OT especially) with any other text of its era (B.C.), and
2). As a Christian it is required to believe that Jesus is the One True God in the Flesh and therefore every word He spoke is true. He spoke of the Scriptures (OT) as ___A: The source of Life, and ___B: Testifying of Himself (Jesus and YHWH and the I Am, as one in the same)
Therefore, if you are a Christian, you also Believe that the Bible (ESP OT) is the Word of God, and it follows that it must be true, because He declared it.
The converse is that if you claim the Bible is not true, you are not a Christian.
Unless this "external input" repeats itself, it does not provide for a satisfactory element of an hypothesis. If it does prove repeatable, science can deal with it.
Real Question: Is there ANYTHING in the teaching of evolution that involves a repeatable process? I don't think we should be calling it science. It is really biology and philosophy inseparably mixed together.
I'm not up for debating the issue, but I wanted to throw out the point most overlooked - that "Science" isn't science, only the scientific method part of it is. The rest of it is philosophy, and politics, and economics, and world domination, and...
Unfortunately the opposite occurs with alarming regularity. The religous right actively tries to interfere with the practice of science; protesting and passing laws against scientific practices and teachings they are not approving of - stem cell research, evolution, abortion (medicine is applied science after all) and so forth.
Conservatives aren't against the science of those things, they are bringing in the question of ETHICS, which is not scientific in nature. What the right is doing is not eliminating science, no, but rather adding to it other areas of reality (not imagination as many claim).
To address the original question: The problem of the teaching of evolution is not the process itself, but the dogmatic confinement of "scientific" thought to internal forces and completely rejecting any possible hypotheses of any external input whatsoever. The atheists are the "religious zealots" in this case. Look and see who's ranting on this thread.;-)
Well, first off C/C++ is the language in which the OS is written. And secondly, it's fast, which is the reason for #1. I am a die-hard C/C++ programmer and write such things as drivers and image processing code, which need every ounce of speed they can get. I use C++ over C because it is Object-Oriented and, therefore, complete code modules can be reused without difficulty.
I never cared much about the "virtual machine" languages (VB, JAVA, etc.) because that machine is pathetic when compared to the host due to the overhead of the anti "code slop" and technology guarding (i.e. lock-in) features.
He's a giver, not a taker. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or ignorant. Watch the Passion of the Christ, knowing that it is historically accurate, and ask yourself "Why would anyone willingly go through such a thing?" All He had to do was take back what He said and they would have let Him go.
Here's the point I am making: You cannot derive God logically, mathematically, physically, or otherwise. He lives outside our system of existence. It is possible for Him to get to us through it, but not for us to get to Him, unless He comes to "take us." And I am not talking about aliens.
Seems nobody wants to give God credit for anything. I give Him credit and thank Him for making me and giving me life.
And, to make you happy, (or not) I do have: 1. A Bachelor of Computer Engineering (B.Comp.E.), 2. A B.S. Comp Sci, and 3. A M.S. in Applied and Computational Mathematics, and I have been in the industry for almost 15 years.
So I know a little about the subject of which were speaking. I'm just not interested in purely theoretical mathematics.
Would you mind sharing the idea with us, explain how to measure it in biological systems, tell us how "getting more organized" relates to that measure, state and justify "the law of entropy", and show how "getting more organized" by the information-theoretic measure "flies in the face" of it?
How about a paraphrase of Goedel's Theorem: Truth is a superset of proof.
Normal is 100. You don't have to be much below that to get to "retarded." This is the problem. It would not be difficult to populate the world using artificial insemination with eggs and sperm from those with IQ 140 and higher. The danger is that it is too easy to do.
We need to value people regardless of their DNA, XX or XY, IQ, Height, - Whatever. People should rather concern themselves with raising up mature, well educated, honorable offspring who can be a part of making this world a better place.
You are stepping into the danger zone, Since IQ is a normal distribution about the IQ of the parents. So. Ahem. Uhhh. Please step into the light. Thank you.
Just a little pinprick. There be no more aaaauuuggggh!
ALL arguments regarding Evolution are non-factual. Both sides can only discuss basic principles, such as the ideas of natural selection which weeds out "inferior" species.
The problem people have is that new species are not forming. And no one can give an example of a succesful mutation. The animals die, are sterile, or are not any different than their parents.
Furthermore, people who argue one one side of this issue are inconsistent in their viewpoint. If natural selection is such a great motivator - why not let the Earth be changed through the timber industry and other development. With natural selection, new species would arise and be much stronger and capable to exist in that environment. But, the Evolutionists are the same people that are against drilling in AK or fearing deforestation and spiking trees, etc.
The truth is that Evolutionists are really more anti-God than pro-science. I am pro science and pro God. But God is greater than science and always will be.
>> Just because other people have made "religious" issues out of their own ignorance, doesn't make every idea about God false. >And we should accept your idea and reject everyone else's, because...?
It's not my idea.
>> And just because you don't like the idea of God, He won't go away. >And vice versa?
Just because you are blind, doesn't mean NO ONE can see.
Just because other people have made "religious" issues out of their own ignorance, doesn't make every idea about God false. And just because you don't like the idea of God, He won't go away.
That's just energy. It doesn't put things together in an organizational way. actually, that exactly what energy can and does do
So if I train this laser beam on my programming workstation, it'll fix all the bugs and package it up into a self healing, learning, sentient program? Cool!
2nd law of thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems only. The SUN is giving us energy, so Earth by itself is not closed, it is GAINING energy. LIFE uses this to energy to power complex chemical machinery.
I am not talking about the earth only. I am talking about the universe (the part we can touch and see: 3D + time). It is either "closed" or NOT.
Also, as far as "entropy == disorganized" goes.. blah blah blah actual definition... blah blah
I am not speaking of thermodynamics only. I am speaking of entropy in the sense of its use in information theory, but applying it to the entire system of the universe, especially as it pertains to biological systems. We'll use my analogy and not your "definition."
there is energy "wasted" in every conversion.
For a second there I thought you said conversation:-P
Evolution doesn't work. There are no examples, no known mutations have caused a jump between one species and a new "incompatible" species. Who's making leaps of faith now? Stating that evolution is a fact (or saying it's true) is not scientific.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you have to choose whether it's ok to legislate morality. I'd prefer to avoid it myself, but unfortunately I guess that's just another set of morals, right?
I agree with you in the sense that both parties are ideological in why they want certain laws passed. What's funny is that the topic is about "not politicizing non-scientific ideologies" when in all reality this is a political activist organization - and are politicizing science (or what they consider science, which is debatable)!
"Legislating Morality" is very much misunderstood, however. All laws have a moral basis. You just can't make people "moral" through laws. I heard a better phrase - "You can't legislate virtue"
You are aware that you have just insulted my Gods and Goddesses? How dare you call my Gods FALSE! I on the other would never call your God false.
;-)
If I see them, I will explain my position to them.
Christians have only stopped killing others because they are "infidels" for about 200 years.
In my country, that is a REALLY long time!
I find it interesting that the Muslims are in there 16th century. When christianity where in there 16th century the Spanish inquisition was killing anyone with an own opinion and Germany was right in the protestant vs. catholic war. If Charles Darwin had been born in the 16th century he would have been burned on the stake right away.
They are considered disobedient, and have also repented (as a church or religious group) for their actions. My guess is that it will be a while before that happens with the Muslims.
It is true that the Universal Church (called the Body of Christ) is a work in progress and we have not yet come to the unity of the faith, so I can understand the issues you bring up - but I think the real point is that the are Christian groups that do actually stand up and condemn actions by fascist "christians" and such. I would like to see such condemnation by Muslim leaders who do not support terrorism. I am not hearing it.
Prehaps you should replace all "Christians" in your text with "modern Christians".
I did think of writing "True Christians," but thought that would be redundant, as I am not talking about the disobedient, weak, or immature Christians - or the pretend Christians that get on the news supporting "separation of Church and State." (You can't separate the Christianity from the Christian no matter how hard you try).
I don't know what else to tell you, and I hope you can understand what I am saying. It has been a pleasure discussing this with you. May God bless you!
Curt
The reason there is a commandment about not worshiping other gods, is that they are FALSE gods, and not worth worshiping. No benefit to the worshiper at all, since pieces of wood, metal, or paper can't be there for you like a REAL God. And of course there are the unclean spirits, which can pretend to be gods, but really aren't either. They can put on a great show none the less.
Religious zealots who kill others because they are infidels are not Christians - they are Muslims.
Christians also do not FORCE their beliefs on anyone, they are sharing a way out of trouble with them. The weapons Christians use in religious activity are spiritual - fasting, prayer and supplication and even preaching. Natural weapons such as military force are used for national defense (pre-emptive, reactive, or otherwise). It is OK to fight. Turn the other cheek means let them hit you twice because you can take it, not cower in fear and give in ALL the time. Just make sure it wasn't an accident and your enemy knows what he is doing when he is doing it.
I agree that there are some who have misread the Bible and have been disobedient to God. That doesn't change the Truth, however.
Excellent Answer! This is one of two possibilities I was expecting. The other, which I thought was the most obvious, are the Israelites, who gave us the Bible.
So the true answer to the original question is that "embracing science" is no way to ensure the longevity of a society. I am not saying throw out science, but, rather keep it in it's place (not at the top of the food chain, as the Atheists are screaming). There is a whole lot more to life than scientific analysis.
"Those who call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"
So lets see how long Christianity will survive without bloodshed.
Bloodshed is at the core of Christianity, without it, Christianity would never have existed.
Two things:
1). The quality and importance of an ancient text is directly related to the number of manuscripts or copies in existence. Compare the Bible (OT especially) with any other text of its era (B.C.), and
2). As a Christian it is required to believe that Jesus is the One True God in the Flesh and therefore every word He spoke is true. He spoke of the Scriptures (OT) as
___A: The source of Life, and
___B: Testifying of Himself (Jesus and YHWH and the I Am, as one in the same)
Therefore, if you are a Christian, you also Believe that the Bible (ESP OT) is the Word of God, and it follows that it must be true, because He declared it.
The converse is that if you claim the Bible is not true, you are not a Christian.
Unless this "external input" repeats itself, it does not provide for a satisfactory element of an hypothesis. If it does prove repeatable, science can deal with it.
Real Question: Is there ANYTHING in the teaching of evolution that involves a repeatable process? I don't think we should be calling it science. It is really biology and philosophy inseparably mixed together.
I'm not up for debating the issue, but I wanted to throw out the point most overlooked - that "Science" isn't science, only the scientific method part of it is. The rest of it is philosophy, and politics, and economics, and world domination, and...
Unfortunately the opposite occurs with alarming regularity. The religous right actively tries to interfere with the practice of science; protesting and passing laws against scientific practices and teachings they are not approving of - stem cell research, evolution, abortion (medicine is applied science after all) and so forth.
;-)
Conservatives aren't against the science of those things, they are bringing in the question of ETHICS, which is not scientific in nature. What the right is doing is not eliminating science, no, but rather adding to it other areas of reality (not imagination as many claim).
To address the original question: The problem of the teaching of evolution is not the process itself, but the dogmatic confinement of "scientific" thought to internal forces and completely rejecting any possible hypotheses of any external input whatsoever. The atheists are the "religious zealots" in this case. Look and see who's ranting on this thread.
Well, first off C/C++ is the language in which the OS is written. And secondly, it's fast, which is the reason for #1. I am a die-hard C/C++ programmer and write such things as drivers and image processing code, which need every ounce of speed they can get. I use C++ over C because it is Object-Oriented and, therefore, complete code modules can be reused without difficulty.
I never cared much about the "virtual machine" languages (VB, JAVA, etc.) because that machine is pathetic when compared to the host due to the overhead of the anti "code slop" and technology guarding (i.e. lock-in) features.
It's really like saying that since you "compiled" your code with GCC, the resulting program is subject to the GPL, which it isn't.
I never did have much patience for extortionists.
He's a giver, not a taker. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or ignorant. Watch the Passion of the Christ, knowing that it is historically accurate, and ask yourself
"Why would anyone willingly go through such a thing?" All He had to do was take back what He said and they would have let Him go.
Here's the point I am making: You cannot derive God logically, mathematically, physically, or otherwise. He lives outside our system of existence. It is possible for Him to get to us through it, but not for us to get to Him, unless He comes to "take us." And I am not talking about aliens.
Seems nobody wants to give God credit for anything. I give Him credit and thank Him for making me and giving me life.
And, to make you happy, (or not) I do have:
1. A Bachelor of Computer Engineering (B.Comp.E.),
2. A B.S. Comp Sci, and
3. A M.S. in Applied and Computational Mathematics, and I have been in the industry for almost 15 years.
So I know a little about the subject of which were speaking. I'm just not interested in purely theoretical mathematics.
Yes, God's tolerance of Evil is a complete mystery, but according to the Bible He is planning on straightening the entire mess out on Jugment Day.
I advise you to be on His side before then.
Would you mind sharing the idea with us, explain how to measure it in biological systems, tell us how "getting more organized" relates to that measure, state and justify "the law of entropy", and show how "getting more organized" by the information-theoretic measure "flies in the face" of it?
How about a paraphrase of Goedel's Theorem: Truth is a superset of proof.
Normal is 100. You don't have to be much below that to get to "retarded." This is the problem. It would not be difficult to populate the world using artificial insemination with eggs and sperm from those with IQ 140 and higher. The danger is that it is too easy to do.
We need to value people regardless of their DNA, XX or XY, IQ, Height, - Whatever. People should rather concern themselves with raising up mature, well educated, honorable offspring who can be a part of making this world a better place.
You are stepping into the danger zone, Since IQ is a normal distribution about the IQ of the parents. So. Ahem. Uhhh. Please step into the light. Thank you.
Just a little pinprick. There be no more aaaauuuggggh!
ALL arguments regarding Evolution are non-factual. Both sides can only discuss basic principles, such as the ideas of natural selection which weeds out "inferior" species.
The problem people have is that new species are not forming. And no one can give an example of a succesful mutation. The animals die, are sterile, or are not any different than their parents.
Furthermore, people who argue one one side of this issue are inconsistent in their viewpoint. If natural selection is such a great motivator - why not let the Earth be changed through the timber industry and other development. With natural selection, new species would arise and be much stronger and capable to exist in that environment. But, the Evolutionists are the same people that are against drilling in AK or fearing deforestation and spiking trees, etc.
The truth is that Evolutionists are really more anti-God than pro-science. I am pro science and pro God. But God is greater than science and always will be.
Do you have the faintest idea what information-theoretic entropy is?
My buddy Claude gave me a few pointers.
You hardly simplify the problem by invoking a Cosmic Middle Man.
If you you want to twist it around, so that the Beginning and the End are called the middle...
I know God, and He really is not pissed at you. If He was, you'd be dead.
>> Just because other people have made "religious" issues out of their own ignorance, doesn't make every idea about God false.
>And we should accept your idea and reject everyone else's, because...?
It's not my idea.
>> And just because you don't like the idea of God, He won't go away.
>And vice versa?
Just because you are blind, doesn't mean NO ONE can see.
Just because other people have made "religious" issues out of their own ignorance, doesn't make every idea about God false.
And just because you don't like the idea of God, He won't go away.
That's just energy. It doesn't put things together in an organizational way.
actually, that exactly what energy can and does do
So if I train this laser beam on my programming workstation, it'll fix all the bugs and package it up into a self healing, learning, sentient program? Cool!
Don't regurgitate.
:-P
2nd law of thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems only. The SUN is giving us energy, so Earth by itself is not closed, it is GAINING energy. LIFE uses this to energy to power complex chemical machinery.
I am not talking about the earth only. I am talking about the universe (the part we can touch and see: 3D + time). It is either "closed" or NOT.
Also, as far as "entropy == disorganized" goes.. blah blah blah actual definition... blah blah
I am not speaking of thermodynamics only. I am speaking of entropy in the sense of its use in information theory, but applying it to the entire system of the universe, especially as it pertains to biological systems. We'll use my analogy and not your "definition."
there is energy "wasted" in every conversion.
For a second there I thought you said conversation
No, you're just a man of lesser education than he.
Wut FR
biosphere gets more diverse over time
Evolution doesn't work. There are no examples, no known mutations have caused a jump between one species and a new "incompatible" species. Who's making leaps of faith now? Stating that evolution is a fact (or saying it's true) is not scientific.