I recommend to all to spend the time to download check out the video. In college, I took one semester of Oceanography, enough to understand the science behind implications but not fully grasp the problem presented by global warming.
What is most interesting is that vortexes are not really understood in common culture and just how inportant thy are in terms of power to many daily facts of life.
DaVinci studied cadavers and found out that it is the vortexes in blood flow through the years that close the heart valves as blood flows through.
Bumblebees can fly due to the uplifting forces of vortexes on their wind edges.
A pulverizer driven by vortex power was mentioned here on/. many years ago that was able to take mostly anything 'cept fat and turn it into dust.
One of the common effects in nature that has great potential and is right before our eyes is being ignored by most - possibly because they are poorly understood.
This article is an example of someone paying attention to the vortex and finding out what could be done with it for mankind.
Sure sounds like something REALLY interesting to learn about.
Well, Condi and Gonzales. Two kids whom I'm not terribly fond of.
But, where is the strong wording here? This appears to read as straight, polite, directed and to the point.
The internet's structure (sans spam) seems to be working well. Why change it. If Mongolia created the internet and kept it working fine, I'm sure that most of the users would be ok with that - sans little fears and a bit of "why can't our country run out part of it" pride.
But I do agree with Condi and Gonzales in this case. We created it, we have a system that works, and we're running it. Why change this into a system which could encourage bureaucracy?
Wow. It could be just as effective as a UN. Wait. That would be a very bad idea.
You wrote "that's a bit unfair". To the contrary. I think that the grubby look was intentional, depicting a struggle to maintain a civilization in space. Not everything was nice and shiny.
However, if you can pull that off well, it may work. That particular look and feel of the characters just killed the vibe and believability for me.
To me, it's like anime. The BIG EYES and sullen grunting in many series just ruin any experience of what the creators were trying to accomplish. The sense of believability and comfort with the entire vision of what they are presenting is broken - to me. A perfect contrast would be the opening scenes of Mononoke which have continuity, consistency of character design and characters believable appearance, movement and demeanor.
My hair is not nearly as pointy and my eyes do not take up 1/4 of one side of my face. ANYWAY, the point is that some factor can exist that helps to pull you in to the story being presented - or it can detract from the desired effect. And B5 simply didn't work for me.
I mean here in SF, CA, UPN plays reruns of Smallville. It's all about money and recouping investments on the vehicles you own isn't it? So approach the copyright holders in their terms.
With the advent of "build your own channel" style TV, this is bound to happen.
Also, major corporations will have old shows "on tap" and can be paid and be priced depending on viewer demand unless they "hold back" show availability to increase demand; which is sure to happen.
This is indeed a concept that deserves hashing out over a few beers and an iChat session.
Feel free to buzz me on iChat or AIM - I'm zav (at!) mac.com
Totally agree. Space - Above and Beyond was THE star. After it was canned, I actually gave up on TV for a while.
B5 had a grubby feel to it when compared to ST TNG and weird character appearances for anything that wwas not human. Like they were trying to look strange. I never got pulled in to it.
I must admit that my view upon religion is largely influenced by that of the current state in America were it appears we have a new and unfair position of pushing policy decisions driven by religion, not fact. Also, Jihadists who are basically hired thugs blowing up civilians across the world presumably with the intent that "my life sucks, but I'll get 30 virgins in heaven after I blow myself up for this holy cause."
But if you read a little of the Quran, you might get spooked or come up with a different view altogether. My cursory reading of the Quran and of the Bible lead me to believe that these are not religions per se but merely guides for how to live in a society. To try to use these books as Holy Explainers Of All seems to be a mistake. Obviously, I have difficulty believing that our entire purpose on this Earth and reasons for existence can be explained by people who have not yet developed internal plumbing. Again, let's continue this when I have a little more time.
In regards to all religions being wrong, I proposed that "at least one is not right" and chose a method that I can validate is right for the source of my knowledge since not being able to validate the origins of creation as taught in many religions invalidated by ability to rely upon them.
Wow. That's a bit thick but I hope the point comes through.
Wow, I don't know where to start except at the beginning. This is going to take some time that I don't currently have but it's an awesome discussion.
Oh and I agree that Evolution does not rule out God. Science can not prove or disprove anything that may exist outside that which is detectable. It's the folks who say that Evolution can't exist because of various biblical reasons who have an invalid argument.
If the universe were created by a god who exists in other um, realms, (for lack of a better word) then, by definition, science can not measure god since it is outside that which is measureable. However this also implies that by this scenario there is no way to prove a god exists unless it comes into the detectable realms and some thing actually detects it.
I like your comment on my observation on Truths. I do not imply that they all are false though I see how you could see otherwise. What brings up doubt is with all the potential truths, how can I be sure to pick the one right one - if there is one. Well, I can't. I don't know how. The most reliable mechanism I do know is through scientific observation and I do get the most return on investment (my time) by that which is validated through this method. I'm also not a scholar in world religions so I'm not qualified to pick the one that might contain the correct Truth. Also, what if there is a one Truth that is not explained by any of these religions? The only Truths I can be sure of are the ones I can measure.
If you wish, you can email me at zavpublic AT mac.com and we can continue the discussion. It would be cool to explore these points over a smoked salmon of deliciousness and post our results when we have the proper time to spend on it that this topic deserves.
Thanks for the good dialog.
In the name of the holy and delicious Salmon who died for my taste buds, I shall depart.
It would be ignorant of me to state that Science answers everything. Science can not answer meaning.
But when many points in our religions conflict with that which science has factually proven, are you going to deny the facts?
You state that Religion speaks to purpose and value and meaning. That implies that there has to be a meaning. We are looking from our perspective for a meaning in our life and find it VERY hard to see how selfish and potentially that is. The universe is a huge place and why do we think that we rank high enough to have a meaning for our lives within respect to this universe? What if there IS no meaning given to us and our individual existence? What if the meaning of our lives is dictated by what we accomplish while here and who we positively affect?
What if our meaning is that which we, ourselves create?
Several religious folks have stated the point of TRUTH today to me in their writings. I have commonly rebutted by stating "There are many religions in this world, each with their own TRUTHs. I propose that at least one of them is wrong." What is there is no absolute TRUTH? What if we make our own meaning as we go throughout this world. To me, that is truly challenging, difficult and rewarding.
You have the part in this whole machine that you make for yourself. You have the value to others as a result of how you affect their lives. It matters what you do but only within your sphere of influence and you are subject to the implications of those actions, be they good or bad.
I know this is severe but it strikes me that if you must look to religion for meaning, then maybe you need to accomplish more in your life. I sure as hell feel like I need to and I'm trying to learn the patience to do just that.
"There just has to be more to life than living and dying."
Do you think we are so important that we transcend life itself? Reality is much harsher than most expect. If this is all there is, then we'd ought to make more of an effort to accomplish while we are here. And this is the point where I proceed to accomplish procuring some smoked salmon.
Ok. Christianity is but one popular religion on this planet. Many of these different religions teach that their view is absolute truth. I propose that at least one of them is wrong.
Now to respond to your point about evolution, it takes no faith at all. This is the point. It is supported in fact, not in faith. As I have detailed earlier on today, and will gladly repeat, Evolution is the process of Natural Selection over time. Or that can be a simplification of it. I ask you this, do you believe in Natural Selection?
Please take some time before responding.
If you say no, then please think what your reasoning is and I will do my best to illustrate my point.
Do you have a specific breed of dog? If so, then you own validation of Natural Selection
Do you eat corn, potatoes, beef, chicken, turkey, strawberries, blueberries, broccoli, lettuce, pears, apples, oranges? I so then you are eating validation of Natural Selection.
By any chance have you read Origin of Species? Or at least the first two chapters?
If you have answered yes to any one of the above questions, then let me explain.
Specific breeds of dogs and specific foods mentioned are the product of Selective Breeding. God didn't make all dogs in their current form, we bred them from a common ancestor. I'm sure you'll agree but this is documented.
All the meats, fruits and vegetables mentioned did not exist in their present form hundreds of years ago. Even the fruits and vegetables. They parents were bred and the offspring that had the most desirable quantities were raised and bred until we have the results you see today. Corn originally had grass sized kernels. Many fruits we have today were not round and robust but much smaller and barely palatable. They were bred over hundreds of years for the characteristics of size and sweetness we see today. God did not make oranges the size they are today. They were bred to be this way through Selective Breeding of most desirable offspring. In Roman times, almost none of the fruits we have today existed in their current state. Chickens and turkeys have been been changed through Selective Breeding. All agriculture we have today and ranching is based on the concept of Selective Breeding of the most desirable offspring. It might be surprizing but this is a fact and is documented.
Now, the rules governing Natural Selection are the SAME as the rules governing Selective Breeding. The only difference is the qualities being selected for are determined by the individuals breeding by their own choice, not the farmer. This is also a fact. The genetics of the parents determine this and the rules of genetics explain this.
Natural Selection over time with a few random mutations thrown in for spice essentially IS Evolution.
The fact that you are alive today, eat the foods you eat, walk your specific dog and benefit from medicine all are validations of Natural Selection whether you believe in it or not.
As you can see, and if my explanation is accurate (as I believe it is), to reject these points is to reject the facts. And if you reject the facts, well, you're merely deluding yourself.
Faith is belief that which has not been been proven by facts. Truth is observation of that which has been factually proven. To state otherwise contradicts and diminishes the nature(validity?) of both.
Thoughtful response. This is getting to be a detailed thread for me.
Thank you for clarifying what Christianity teaches. It's been a long time since I attended mass but seem to remember something along those lines. What I'm specifically referring to, and I apologize for not going into better detail in my original post, is "the overall feeling of going to a church and being part of a group where you are taught what you believe is good and right" makes people feel good. Even if it is inaccurate. It's a phenomenon unto itself. I detailed it in another response but that's the gist of it.
Regarding my "Religion is a panacea" statement, you have stated that it is "ignorant at best and flame-bait at worst" but you have not stated why. I believe that you are speaking from your religious viewpoint. There are so many varied religions all over the world who teach so many different things as "truth". I propose that at least one of them is wrong. In that line or reasoning, I find it hard to refute my statement. Why am I wrong?
Well, almost. This is one of the stickiest problems of our time, I mean, how an you justify this approach and why to we pay to support murders as they die in jail?
I think the point in my statement is that by having reckless disregard for someone else's life, you have invalidated the worth of your own and this removes whatever factor it is that justifies you as part of society.
It's like an additional setting on the top of "1 live human" called "Menace to Society", "Blight upon Humanity" or "Respectful of Other Citizen's Lives". With a 1 or 0. Not sure which best applies.
It's not merely the fact that you're alive and a citizen of your country that matters. It's your regard for the lives of other citizens of your country. When you have gone so far to have proven no regard for the lives of other citizens of your country, you have invalidated your own as a citizen of your country.
Something like "if you willingly and purposely kill someone you knowingly give up the right to your own life."
Ok. I guess my validation for being a bit of a science fundamentalist - or more accurately in my book a non-religious fundamentalist is that science is a continual process of discovery. Religion, especially Christian based religion, appears to be a "study what's written" and if there is discovery, it's by mulling over what's already been told. I was raised in the Church and quite simply, didn't buy it.
But with that said, I do believe that science is one school of thought but the basic principle of scientific thought is hard to refute. Observe, and quantify. Base your observations on that which is observable and quantifiable. Anything else is merely guesswork. When put that way, it's hard to refute that approach. If you are a scientist and you publish work based on this principle, it is peer reviewed by others to validate your results, thereby making it more likely to be correct as well as accurate. Yes, cases do fall through the cracks.
But without the fundamental principle of drawing a conclusion by observation of quantifiable results, it's hard to do much more than form a speculative conclusion. And I find that rather hard to argue with.
Now, in my quote, if you replace Religion with Science, you'll find that your argument does not hold true since scientific discovery is ALL ABOUT finding out how the whole world works. If that were not the case, then surely the statement would be hypocritical.
Ok, I see your point. But how many of us can actually truly talk about the Natural Selection if we haven't read the original doctrine on it?
My fine point was supported by your argument not to read it. My observation is to get the degree first as the book has had many concepts superseded. But reading about the concept of Natural Selection and how it came to be and also that Darwin was not the only scholar moving in that direction at the time are very enlightening.
I feel that the first two chapters and the chapter on Morphology are the most relevant. In the first two, one fact most important. Over hundreds of years, we have by Selective Breeding, taken corn from a grass with small seeds into what we have today. Many fruits, the pear, apple, orange have been bred for their size, sweetness and flavor that we have today. In Roman times, these were much smaller and less the shape and flavor we have today. With our livestock, we have bred to select for the favorable qualities we desire in the offspring.
The fact is that we have used the rules of nature and evolution to create most of the plants and animals that are the foods we eat today.
We have used the rules of nature that govern Natural Selection in Selective Breeding and what the anti evolutionists are unaware of is that most EVERY food we eat today was developed by these rules and by our ancestors!
The fact that you are alive today and eat robust apples, corn, pears, beef, strawberries, blueberries, potatoes, chicken, turkey, broccoli, etc... validates Natural Selection because the rules of Selective Breeding ARE the rules of Natural Selection. And there's this little bit about genetics in there too that's more than slightly important.
If these people own a specific breed of dog, they are surrounded by the results of Selective Breeding.
If people refuse to understand or see this, it is frightening how stupid/ignorant they are.
If you can explain to them by their rules in terms and a scenario they already understand, then they are more prepared to accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's a pretty half assed conclusion.
The problem of spam is solved when people don't have to use filtering options.
Anyone want some of my daily rolex, stock, viagra, or prescription spam?
If not a death penalty, then jail time.
11 billion seconds of jail time might be nice.
His choice.
it's called the control key. Control click = right mouse button.
In the old days, option click did it.
Not a terribly hard concept.
I actually started playing doom on the pc and never used the right mouse.
got a 3 button logitec for my mac and never needed to use anything but the left mouse button.
So, I guess the answer to your question is "easily".
Well, that's just dumb.
Cali's the 6th largest economy in the world. And our dollar's doing OH SO WELL when compared to the gold standard. Are you SURE you want to do that?
But maybe you're talking about Stockton or Vallejo. If they go, I'm with ya.
As for Mass. Eh, I could go either way. Still can't buy beer in a supermarket or on Sundays in Baaahstun. Now that's a wicked pissa.
Why can't Kansas just secede from the union?
The United State of Kansas.
Sorta has a ring to it doesn't it?
I recommend to all to spend the time to download check out the video. In college, I took one semester of Oceanography, enough to understand the science behind implications but not fully grasp the problem presented by global warming.
This video does a nice job of spelling it out.
My BIG mistake here was that I was confused and thought that Condi and Alberto Gonzalez crafted that letter.
A concerned slashdotter set me straight. It was not Gonzalez, the AG, but Carlos M. Guiterrez, Secretary of Commerce.
I sit corrected.
Awesome points. You're not feeding a troll, just educating a poster. Cheers. Great reply man.
Thank you!
:]
You are absolutely correct.
I for one, do appreciate being notified when I screw up.
Thanks.
Bill Gates Found in Borneo.
Film at 11.
Species: Dorkus geekio
What is most interesting is that vortexes are not really understood in common culture and just how inportant thy are in terms of power to many daily facts of life.
/. many years ago that was able to take mostly anything 'cept fat and turn it into dust.
DaVinci studied cadavers and found out that it is the vortexes in blood flow through the years that close the heart valves as blood flows through.
Bumblebees can fly due to the uplifting forces of vortexes on their wind edges.
A pulverizer driven by vortex power was mentioned here on
One of the common effects in nature that has great potential and is right before our eyes is being ignored by most - possibly because they are poorly understood.
This article is an example of someone paying attention to the vortex and finding out what could be done with it for mankind.
Sure sounds like something REALLY interesting to learn about.
and then...
PROFIT!
Well, Condi and Gonzales. Two kids whom I'm not terribly fond of.
But, where is the strong wording here? This appears to read as straight, polite, directed and to the point.
The internet's structure (sans spam) seems to be working well. Why change it. If Mongolia created the internet and kept it working fine, I'm sure that most of the users would be ok with that - sans little fears and a bit of "why can't our country run out part of it" pride.
But I do agree with Condi and Gonzales in this case. We created it, we have a system that works, and we're running it. Why change this into a system which could encourage bureaucracy?
Wow. It could be just as effective as a UN. Wait. That would be a very bad idea.
You wrote "that's a bit unfair". To the contrary. I think that the grubby look was intentional, depicting a struggle to maintain a civilization in space. Not everything was nice and shiny.
However, if you can pull that off well, it may work. That particular look and feel of the characters just killed the vibe and believability for me.
To me, it's like anime. The BIG EYES and sullen grunting in many series just ruin any experience of what the creators were trying to accomplish. The sense of believability and comfort with the entire vision of what they are presenting is broken - to me. A perfect contrast would be the opening scenes of Mononoke which have continuity, consistency of character design and characters believable appearance, movement and demeanor.
My hair is not nearly as pointy and my eyes do not take up 1/4 of one side of my face. ANYWAY, the point is that some factor can exist that helps to pull you in to the story being presented - or it can detract from the desired effect. And B5 simply didn't work for me.
Awesome idea!
I mean here in SF, CA, UPN plays reruns of Smallville. It's all about money and recouping investments on the vehicles you own isn't it? So approach the copyright holders in their terms.
With the advent of "build your own channel" style TV, this is bound to happen.
Also, major corporations will have old shows "on tap" and can be paid and be priced depending on viewer demand unless they "hold back" show availability to increase demand; which is sure to happen.
This is indeed a concept that deserves hashing out over a few beers and an iChat session.
Feel free to buzz me on iChat or AIM - I'm zav (at!) mac.com
Totally agree. Space - Above and Beyond was THE star. After it was canned, I actually gave up on TV for a while.
B5 had a grubby feel to it when compared to ST TNG and weird character appearances for anything that wwas not human. Like they were trying to look strange. I never got pulled in to it.
Man, I miss Space - Above and Beyond.
Awesome show.
Or Tolulene, Benzene or Hexane.
"Organic" chemistry simply means "with a carbon ring."
Don't recommend eating any of the above unless you like cancer.
First of all, your units are incorrect. 128Mbps ?? WTF?
Second of all, use your brain, open the preferences and set the importing prefs to 160 kbps or greater.
kbps, not Mbps.
It's under the advanced tab.
Enjoy.
Awesome point.
I must admit that my view upon religion is largely influenced by that of the current state in America were it appears we have a new and unfair position of pushing policy decisions driven by religion, not fact. Also, Jihadists who are basically hired thugs blowing up civilians across the world presumably with the intent that "my life sucks, but I'll get 30 virgins in heaven after I blow myself up for this holy cause."
But if you read a little of the Quran, you might get spooked or come up with a different view altogether. My cursory reading of the Quran and of the Bible lead me to believe that these are not religions per se but merely guides for how to live in a society. To try to use these books as Holy Explainers Of All seems to be a mistake. Obviously, I have difficulty believing that our entire purpose on this Earth and reasons for existence can be explained by people who have not yet developed internal plumbing. Again, let's continue this when I have a little more time.
In regards to all religions being wrong, I proposed that "at least one is not right" and chose a method that I can validate is right for the source of my knowledge since not being able to validate the origins of creation as taught in many religions invalidated by ability to rely upon them.
Wow. That's a bit thick but I hope the point comes through.
Good dialog. Cheers.
Wow, I don't know where to start except at the beginning. This is going to take some time that I don't currently have but it's an awesome discussion.
Oh and I agree that Evolution does not rule out God. Science can not prove or disprove anything that may exist outside that which is detectable. It's the folks who say that Evolution can't exist because of various biblical reasons who have an invalid argument.
If the universe were created by a god who exists in other um, realms, (for lack of a better word) then, by definition, science can not measure god since it is outside that which is measureable. However this also implies that by this scenario there is no way to prove a god exists unless it comes into the detectable realms and some thing actually detects it.
I like your comment on my observation on Truths. I do not imply that they all are false though I see how you could see otherwise. What brings up doubt is with all the potential truths, how can I be sure to pick the one right one - if there is one. Well, I can't. I don't know how. The most reliable mechanism I do know is through scientific observation and I do get the most return on investment (my time) by that which is validated through this method. I'm also not a scholar in world religions so I'm not qualified to pick the one that might contain the correct Truth. Also, what if there is a one Truth that is not explained by any of these religions? The only Truths I can be sure of are the ones I can measure.
If you wish, you can email me at zavpublic AT mac.com and we can continue the discussion. It would be cool to explore these points over a smoked salmon of deliciousness and post our results when we have the proper time to spend on it that this topic deserves.
Thanks for the good dialog.
In the name of the holy and delicious Salmon who died for my taste buds, I shall depart.
It would be ignorant of me to state that Science answers everything. Science can not answer meaning.
But when many points in our religions conflict with that which science has factually proven, are you going to deny the facts?
You state that Religion speaks to purpose and value and meaning. That implies that there has to be a meaning. We are looking from our perspective for a meaning in our life and find it VERY hard to see how selfish and potentially that is. The universe is a huge place and why do we think that we rank high enough to have a meaning for our lives within respect to this universe? What if there IS no meaning given to us and our individual existence? What if the meaning of our lives is dictated by what we accomplish while here and who we positively affect?
What if our meaning is that which we, ourselves create?
Several religious folks have stated the point of TRUTH today to me in their writings. I have commonly rebutted by stating "There are many religions in this world, each with their own TRUTHs. I propose that at least one of them is wrong." What is there is no absolute TRUTH? What if we make our own meaning as we go throughout this world. To me, that is truly challenging, difficult and rewarding.
You have the part in this whole machine that you make for yourself. You have the value to others as a result of how you affect their lives. It matters what you do but only within your sphere of influence and you are subject to the implications of those actions, be they good or bad.
I know this is severe but it strikes me that if you must look to religion for meaning, then maybe you need to accomplish more in your life. I sure as hell feel like I need to and I'm trying to learn the patience to do just that.
"There just has to be more to life than living and dying."
Do you think we are so important that we transcend life itself? Reality is much harsher than most expect. If this is all there is, then we'd ought to make more of an effort to accomplish while we are here. And this is the point where I proceed to accomplish procuring some smoked salmon.
Ok. Christianity is but one popular religion on this planet. Many of these different religions teach that their view is absolute truth. I propose that at least one of them is wrong.
9 01642
I apologize for not detailing a summary of what I meant with regards to "feel good". A more detailed post is here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166715&cid=13
Now to respond to your point about evolution, it takes no faith at all. This is the point. It is supported in fact, not in faith.
As I have detailed earlier on today, and will gladly repeat, Evolution is the process of Natural Selection over time. Or that can be a simplification of it. I ask you this, do you believe in Natural Selection?
Please take some time before responding.
If you say no, then please think what your reasoning is and I will do my best to illustrate my point.
Do you have a specific breed of dog? If so, then you own validation of Natural Selection
Do you eat corn, potatoes, beef, chicken, turkey, strawberries, blueberries, broccoli, lettuce, pears, apples, oranges? I so then you are eating validation of Natural Selection.
By any chance have you read Origin of Species? Or at least the first two chapters?
If you have answered yes to any one of the above questions, then let me explain.
Specific breeds of dogs and specific foods mentioned are the product of Selective Breeding. God didn't make all dogs in their current form, we bred them from a common ancestor. I'm sure you'll agree but this is documented.
All the meats, fruits and vegetables mentioned did not exist in their present form hundreds of years ago. Even the fruits and vegetables. They parents were bred and the offspring that had the most desirable quantities were raised and bred until we have the results you see today. Corn originally had grass sized kernels. Many fruits we have today were not round and robust but much smaller and barely palatable. They were bred over hundreds of years for the characteristics of size and sweetness we see today. God did not make oranges the size they are today. They were bred to be this way through Selective Breeding of most desirable offspring. In Roman times, almost none of the fruits we have today existed in their current state. Chickens and turkeys have been been changed through Selective Breeding. All agriculture we have today and ranching is based on the concept of Selective Breeding of the most desirable offspring. It might be surprizing but this is a fact and is documented.
Now, the rules governing Natural Selection are the SAME as the rules governing Selective Breeding. The only difference is the qualities being selected for are determined by the individuals breeding by their own choice, not the farmer. This is also a fact.
The genetics of the parents determine this and the rules of genetics explain this.
Natural Selection over time with a few random mutations thrown in for spice essentially IS Evolution.
The fact that you are alive today, eat the foods you eat, walk your specific dog and benefit from medicine all are validations of Natural Selection whether you believe in it or not.
As you can see, and if my explanation is accurate (as I believe it is), to reject these points is to reject the facts. And if you reject the facts, well, you're merely deluding yourself.
Faith is belief that which has not been been proven by facts. Truth is observation of that which has been factually proven. To state otherwise contradicts and diminishes the nature(validity?) of both.
Thoughtful response. This is getting to be a detailed thread for me.
9 01642
Thank you for clarifying what Christianity teaches. It's been a long time since I attended mass but seem to remember something along those lines. What I'm specifically referring to, and I apologize for not going into better detail in my original post, is "the overall feeling of going to a church and being part of a group where you are taught what you believe is good and right" makes people feel good. Even if it is inaccurate. It's a phenomenon unto itself. I detailed it in another response but that's the gist of it.
I think this is my more detailed response:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166715&cid=13
Regarding my "Religion is a panacea" statement, you have stated that it is "ignorant at best and flame-bait at worst" but you have not stated why. I believe that you are speaking from your religious viewpoint. There are so many varied religions all over the world who teach so many different things as "truth". I propose that at least one of them is wrong. In that line or reasoning, I find it hard to refute my statement. Why am I wrong?
Well, almost. This is one of the stickiest problems of our time, I mean, how an you justify this approach and why to we pay to support murders as they die in jail?
I think the point in my statement is that by having reckless disregard for someone else's life, you have invalidated the worth of your own and this removes whatever factor it is that justifies you as part of society.
It's like an additional setting on the top of "1 live human" called "Menace to Society", "Blight upon Humanity" or "Respectful of Other Citizen's Lives". With a 1 or 0. Not sure which best applies.
It's not merely the fact that you're alive and a citizen of your country that matters. It's your regard for the lives of other citizens of your country. When you have gone so far to have proven no regard for the lives of other citizens of your country, you have invalidated your own as a citizen of your country.
Something like "if you willingly and purposely kill someone you knowingly give up the right to your own life."
??
Ok. I guess my validation for being a bit of a science fundamentalist - or more accurately in my book a non-religious fundamentalist is that science is a continual process of discovery. Religion, especially Christian based religion, appears to be a "study what's written" and if there is discovery, it's by mulling over what's already been told. I was raised in the Church and quite simply, didn't buy it.
But with that said, I do believe that science is one school of thought but the basic principle of scientific thought is hard to refute. Observe, and quantify. Base your observations on that which is observable and quantifiable. Anything else is merely guesswork. When put that way, it's hard to refute that approach. If you are a scientist and you publish work based on this principle, it is peer reviewed by others to validate your results, thereby making it more likely to be correct as well as accurate. Yes, cases do fall through the cracks.
But without the fundamental principle of drawing a conclusion by observation of quantifiable results, it's hard to do much more than form a speculative conclusion. And I find that rather hard to argue with.
Now, in my quote, if you replace Religion with Science, you'll find that your argument does not hold true since scientific discovery is ALL ABOUT finding out how the whole world works. If that were not the case, then surely the statement would be hypocritical.
Ok, I see your point. But how many of us can actually truly talk about the Natural Selection if we haven't read the original doctrine on it?
My fine point was supported by your argument not to read it. My observation is to get the degree first as the book has had many concepts superseded. But reading about the concept of Natural Selection and how it came to be and also that Darwin was not the only scholar moving in that direction at the time are very enlightening.
I feel that the first two chapters and the chapter on Morphology are the most relevant. In the first two, one fact most important. Over hundreds of years, we have by Selective Breeding, taken corn from a grass with small seeds into what we have today. Many fruits, the pear, apple, orange have been bred for their size, sweetness and flavor that we have today. In Roman times, these were much smaller and less the shape and flavor we have today. With our livestock, we have bred to select for the favorable qualities we desire in the offspring.
The fact is that we have used the rules of nature and evolution to create most of the plants and animals that are the foods we eat today.
We have used the rules of nature that govern Natural Selection in Selective Breeding and what the anti evolutionists are unaware of is that most EVERY food we eat today was developed by these rules and by our ancestors!
The fact that you are alive today and eat robust apples, corn, pears, beef, strawberries, blueberries, potatoes, chicken, turkey, broccoli, etc... validates Natural Selection because the rules of Selective Breeding ARE the rules of Natural Selection. And there's this little bit about genetics in there too that's more than slightly important.
If these people own a specific breed of dog, they are surrounded by the results of Selective Breeding.
If people refuse to understand or see this, it is frightening how stupid/ignorant they are.
If you can explain to them by their rules in terms and a scenario they already understand, then they are more prepared to accept it.
Thanks for inspiring me to respond. Cheers,