That common sentiment is superficially reasonable, but it falls apart when you think about it just a little bit harder. When you say that a deity "used evolution" you must mean that a deity performed some action (i.e. set up some intial conditions, or moved some atoms around), and the result was something different than what would have been the case had the deity not performed that action. Otherwise you are saying that the deity's existence makes no difference at all to the universe. In the end, you are postulating something just as miraculous as a 7-day creation, albeit more subtle.
But then the Chinese were subjugated by other Eurasians who decided not to be insular, but rather to plunder the world for its wealth.
Which is the point of the Fermi paradox - yes, maybe 99% of civilizations might retreat and huddle in Dyson spheres or whatever, but all it takes is one civilization to do otherwise and the galaxy is colonized in less than 1e6 years. That none has apparently done so is a datum whose explanation cannot help but be interesting.
"He said: "Casey took one of our bottles and brought it back for us to try after it had been in the machine. I was amazed, it had definitely aged."
..my continuation:
"..now that I remember it, he insisted that we not be actually present when the machine was in operation. It had to do with the molecules and such, he said."
I really don't think these are good questions. The question "Is X alive?"treats life as some singular property that a thing can either have or not have. The discussion here ("X is alive if X displays the following 50 properties: blah, blah, and blah..".. "..well, but that doesn't count as an instance of property Z, since it lacks these 10 sub-properties..") strikes me as rather medieval; we moved beyond that many years ago.
If you want to draw a line between the patentable and the unpatentable, then come up with an argument that justifies where it should be drawn. If the line happens to surround the things you call "alive", you still have to argue for why the line should be drawn there and not somewhere else. In other words, whether you refer to "life" or not, you have to say why it is that bacteria and genes should be unpatentable - so why not save a step and eliminate talk about "life"?
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today, remember always, your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
"The Church (now a days) leaves the science to the scientists, and only holds court on that which is moral and spiritual. How things happen is science. That they happened at all is a matter of faith."
This is patently untrue, as Dawkins has pointed out (in an essay, "Either Jesus had a corporeal father or he didn't. This is not a question of "values" or "morals"; it is a question of sober fact.") And factual claims fall under the domain of science.
The Catholic church's history with science is rocky, as you point out: it reluctantly rewords its positions one by one as they are proven wrong, usually after great struggle, but it never says, "Well, we got it wrong." The resurrection, the assumption, the virgin birth - these are all scientific claims that ought to be rejected. The church's official position is that these things actually happened, when in fact they could not have (without upturning everything science tells us about the world). So you are wrong when you claim that they leave science to the scientists. Catholicism does weigh in on scientific matters but then claims not to. It's not as blatantly incomprehensible as the 7-day young-earth position, of course, but I fail to see how, as you put it, a god 'willing the universe into being' is distinct from creationism; so I will continue to lump them together.
Anyway, the eye story is very interesting and shouldn't even have precipitated this tangent. I'm not trying to get into a long debate here, but read the (short) Dawkins essay and see what you think.
I'm an atheist, and I don't think they are compatible. The main problem with the compatibilist attitude is this: evolution is a blind, mechanical process. There's no need for an agent like a god to do anything; evolution just happens on its own! It doesn't need a god to mutate genes, or put pressure on prey to see their predators better, or urge the lions to catch the slow gazelles, etc. Saying "god did it that way", is to arbitrarily stick a god in the background, where he somehow "endorses" the process of evolution..but there's nothing to do there (besides give believers their security, presumably). In just the same way, you don't need to postulate a shoelace gnome who keeps everybody's shoelaces tied (but uses the mechanism of friction to do it).
You have to look at the motivation of people like the pope when they say these things. They're smart enough to realize that evolution is an incontrovertible fact, but they don't want to give up their religion. So what else are they going to say?
No..actually it is not better. This is just a tautology. It's a valid argument, sure - but all you're doing is stating an arbitrary definition. I could just as easily say:
There exists a bowling ball. I am defining this bowling ball as "I". Therefore "I" exists.
This is also a valid argument. But like yours it misses the point. Where does the definition come from? What makes it valid?
(Also, you've used "I" again, in your 2nd premise. Try not to use the word "I" as a subject before the conclusion that "I" exists.. Yes, I do like to get this technical... isn't this slashdot?)
This is a nice illustration of the logical fallacy of "begging the question", or circular logic.
Your first premise, "I am having thought", assumes the very thing you're trying to prove, namely that "I" exists. You have no right to use "I" in your premises if what you're trying to prove is that "I" exists. So nothing has been proven here.
Agustin Chicarro, ESA's Project Scientist for Mars Express, said: "This is the first time that two space agencies are co-operating on another planet with two spacecraft. It is remarkable to know that one is in orbit and one is on the surface, both taking measurements to complement each other."
I often get emails from a spam archcriminal..he's trying to sell a filmstrip of his offspring doing the backstroke while wearing only a nightshirt. Your filter would work like witchcraft; it'd really put the thumbscrews on this guy...
Slashdot Mirror
That common sentiment is superficially reasonable, but it falls apart when you think about it just a little bit harder. When you say that a deity "used evolution" you must mean that a deity performed some action (i.e. set up some intial conditions, or moved some atoms around), and the result was something different than what would have been the case had the deity not performed that action. Otherwise you are saying that the deity's existence makes no difference at all to the universe. In the end, you are postulating something just as miraculous as a 7-day creation, albeit more subtle.
Yes, Dick Cheney was temporarily acting President.
I am not sure why you are bringing that up, though. It's a non sequitur.
Joe Biden has never been President, acting or otherwise.
My interpretation based on what little I've read:
You can just stop right there then.
Joe Biden has never been president.
But then the Chinese were subjugated by other Eurasians who decided not to be insular, but rather to plunder the world for its wealth.
Which is the point of the Fermi paradox - yes, maybe 99% of civilizations might retreat and huddle in Dyson spheres or whatever, but all it takes is one civilization to do otherwise and the galaxy is colonized in less than 1e6 years. That none has apparently done so is a datum whose explanation cannot help but be interesting.
"..now that I remember it, he insisted that we not be actually present when the machine was in operation. It had to do with the molecules and such, he said."
after work?
mo eadmlo! if mawid etoi can naiej as easy as djej!
And it only transports matter!?
Is there a chance the screen could bend?
s/some/most/
Humans catching a disease from birds? Yeah, right. That'll never happen.
I just hope this network of sky denizens doesn't become self-aware..
"Platinum electrodes provide the juice, driving negative ions - the cause of acidity - from the wine into the water."
wtf? Free protons (H+) or hydronium ions are the cause of acidity, not negative ions!
"I managed in Italy with my Spanish and Latin, but asking in Classical latin where the bathroom is does tend to get looks."
I tried that too. The guy said, "It's been a while since your last visit, hasn't it?"
(an old joke).
I really don't think these are good questions. The question "Is X alive?"treats life as some singular property that a thing can either have or not have. The discussion here ("X is alive if X displays the following 50 properties: blah, blah, and blah.." .. "..well, but that doesn't count as an instance of property Z, since it lacks these 10 sub-properties..") strikes me as rather medieval; we moved beyond that many years ago.
If you want to draw a line between the patentable and the unpatentable, then come up with an argument that justifies where it should be drawn. If the line happens to surround the things you call "alive", you still have to argue for why the line should be drawn there and not somewhere else. In other words, whether you refer to "life" or not, you have to say why it is that bacteria and genes should be unpatentable - so why not save a step and eliminate talk about "life"?
It's worth quoting in full:
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
small robots. And as you go forth today, remember always, your duty is
clear: to build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
"The Church (now a days) leaves the science to the scientists, and only holds court on that which is moral and spiritual. How things happen is science. That they happened at all is a matter of faith."
This is patently untrue, as Dawkins has pointed out (in an essay, "Either Jesus had a corporeal father or he didn't. This is not a question of "values" or "morals"; it is a question of sober fact.") And factual claims fall under the domain of science.
The Catholic church's history with science is rocky, as you point out: it reluctantly rewords its positions one by one as they are proven wrong, usually after great struggle, but it never says, "Well, we got it wrong." The resurrection, the assumption, the virgin birth - these are all scientific claims that ought to be rejected. The church's official position is that these things actually happened, when in fact they could not have (without upturning everything science tells us about the world). So you are wrong when you claim that they leave science to the scientists. Catholicism does weigh in on scientific matters but then claims not to. It's not as blatantly incomprehensible as the 7-day young-earth position, of course, but I fail to see how, as you put it, a god 'willing the universe into being' is distinct from creationism; so I will continue to lump them together.
Anyway, the eye story is very interesting and shouldn't even have precipitated this tangent. I'm not trying to get into a long debate here, but read the (short) Dawkins essay and see what you think.
I'm an atheist, and I don't think they are compatible. The main problem with the compatibilist attitude is this: evolution is a blind, mechanical process. There's no need for an agent like a god to do anything; evolution just happens on its own! It doesn't need a god to mutate genes, or put pressure on prey to see their predators better, or urge the lions to catch the slow gazelles, etc. Saying "god did it that way", is to arbitrarily stick a god in the background, where he somehow "endorses" the process of evolution..but there's nothing to do there (besides give believers their security, presumably). In just the same way, you don't need to postulate a shoelace gnome who keeps everybody's shoelaces tied (but uses the mechanism of friction to do it).
You have to look at the motivation of people like the pope when they say these things. They're smart enough to realize that evolution is an incontrovertible fact, but they don't want to give up their religion. So what else are they going to say?
I think F4 is much less useful.
Now, if I could only get a "commodore" key on my powerbook, I'd be set..
As long as there are absolutely no follow-up questions, yes. Yes it does.
No..actually it is not better. This is just a tautology. It's a valid argument, sure - but all you're doing is stating an arbitrary definition. I could just as easily say:
There exists a bowling ball.
I am defining this bowling ball as "I".
Therefore "I" exists.
This is also a valid argument. But like yours it misses the point. Where does the definition come from? What makes it valid?
(Also, you've used "I" again, in your 2nd premise. Try not to use the word "I" as a subject before the conclusion that "I" exists..
Yes, I do like to get this technical... isn't this slashdot?)
This is a nice illustration of the logical fallacy of "begging the question", or circular logic.
Your first premise, "I am having thought", assumes the very thing you're trying to prove, namely that "I" exists. You have no right to use "I" in your premises if what you're trying to prove is that "I" exists. So nothing has been proven here.
It take two people to conceive a life.
Uh, RTFA.
Is that a Phobos month (8 earth hours) or a Deimos month (30 earth hours)? Either way, that sounds like false advertising..=)
At 10m resolution, one or two pixels in the images will have some light from Spirit, yes. =)
But I think the joining forces around Mars link from the main page is very cool.
From the article:
Agustin Chicarro, ESA's Project Scientist for Mars Express, said: "This is the first time that two space agencies are co-operating on another planet with two spacecraft. It is remarkable to know that one is in orbit and one is on the surface, both taking measurements to complement each other."
I often get emails from a spam archcriminal..he's trying to sell a filmstrip of his offspring doing the backstroke while wearing only a nightshirt. Your filter would work like witchcraft; it'd really put the thumbscrews on this guy...