Aha, so now you are trying a transparent strawman fallacy. I questioned your own misguided beliefs about how E.U. citizens are educated, what their opinion about Americans is, etc. I then claimed that it you were most likely not an E.U. citizen, because if you were one, then your statements wouldn't seem so unrealistic compared to observations that anyone can make by living in a certain area. You are bending that into a "aha, so you like ALL Americans" type of statement.
If you look at my posting history, which you did, you will see that my criticism for the U.S. (as well as for the E.U.) falls into the (b) category.
You are the one using the term "stupid" on yourself. I can merely compromise and agree on that part of your self-assessment. They are not my words. Your intelligence or lack of intelligence does not shield you from not knowing what you're talking about as is evidenced by your displayed lack of understanding of the E.U. -- in fact, you apparently fail to lack understand the motivations of a significant number of people in your own country who choose to live "packed" in cities.
You are bringing the second world war into this debate. Yes, I'm glad the US got militarily involved back then. No, I am not thankful for it in the least to you personally.
I don't see what the second world war has to do with anything. I did not ask anybody and especially not you personally to militarily intervene in anything. Defeating extreme nationalism in Germany is an achievement of a coalition of many countries, including Canada, Australia, Russia, England, etc, etc. To my understanding, the U.S. even got involved in the war quite a bit later than the rest of the coalition. But, since you bring it up... yes, I do hear a lot of Americans gloating about how "they" liberated Europe, even though they were born decades after this event and are only loosely associated with it because of the country they happened to be born in.
I don't think it makes sense to consider a situation where all trading stops everywhere. Even in situations with militarily enforced embargoes, there will still be some sort of trade. In the case where a country's survival depends on it being to grow 100% of its own food, there are probably many other disastrous issues going on as well. Besides, I don't see how one would enforce food not being imported into the E.U., as it borders with so many different non-E.U. countries. I still maintain my oil-point: if OPEC decided today to cut production, the whole world will suffer.
I myself have often been in cities. I appreciate wide open spaces, but it's not essential for me. If having a lot of land for cheap is your dream/desire, then the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc are good places for you. Different things work for different people. I don't believe you will see that the population of many non-U.S. democratic countries is as a whole more depressed or unhappy than the one residing in the U.S.
I'm not saying you're fearful of the E.U., I just take issue with the part about "moving in" and pitying E.U. people. I feel that my experiences about E.U. citizens have some more relevance since I live here/there. My experience differs a lot from what you say my experience should/could be. Perhaps I misunderstood your intention and you can clarify.
You are right and I agree with what you say. What I said was a counter to the argument of the "eww, socialists!" type. In my country, the leftist parties got decimated in favour of rightist ones and there've been various articles about the slightly right-oriented tendencies throughout Europe as well.
I do predict that with the new countries, there may be a slightly increased push for right-wing parties as a result of fear for economic problems, masses of migrants, security, etc.
I've been to Denmark a couple years ago, btw. One of the things I remember (other than having a good time) is that on the street, people just seem to walk everywhere. Here, they tend to stick more to the right side.
Even if what you say regarding oil is true, once the enormous current supply runs out, it is almost certain there will be a major price hike. It won't matter much for the longer term if there's a bit left. You're the one missing the point, however: you said that the E.U. imports a lot of resources. I pointed out that it's not that much different for the U.S. and many other countries. Why do you think there's a trade deficit?
You did correctly point out one potential misunderstanding though: I said it was obvious that you were not a E.U. citizen because of the perceived uninformedness in your statement. This applied only to you and your displayed lackof understanding of the E.U. -- it can be twisted into "people outside the E.U. are all uninformed about everything".
Your claim of how I have been educated about how to perceive the U.S. is - once again - wrong. It is a common xenophobic argumentation to claim that people from group X raise their kids to hate you and thus it's okay to hate people of group X.
You're the one who brought up the "I won't let them move into my share of land" argument. Perhaps you care to explain what you meant with that. I'm absolutely not interested in your land or your future cattle. Besides, what's wrong with your parent's basement? Mine don't even have a big enough basement.
If you're pulling in historical dislike of French people towards the U.S., then perhaps you need to visit the statue of liberty (more often).
I will agree that there is nothing essentially wrong in pride in achievement, but as you can see from my posts (which you appear to appreciate keeping track of, thanks to me being logged in), gloating about the achievements of people who happen to be born in the same country and who don't even know you is silly. The fact that people have the right to be silly does not give me the obligation of taking them seriously.
Your statements show either a lack of experience with the people you criticize or you do so intentionally. If the latter case is true, then advising you to see more of the world is indeed pointless, as then your aim is to troll. It is not a far-fetched assumption that you do not wish to be identified with your own words.
You yourself have made the argument in favour of being logged in, so I'll just agree with you on that one:-) I do appreciate the fact that you saw my cool 4 digit slashdot ID. See, true achievement is noticed by people even without gloating about it.
What's up with all the AC replies to my posts? Anyway, I will respond. Come on, I don't post anonymously, so you guys don't either. It's almost as if you're assuming there is something "bad" about your own post.
For starters, I don't agree at all with your massive xenophobic generalization. Perhaps you have only come across the kind of French people you mention. My mileage varies a LOT. Are you sure you're not one of those "Freedom Fries" people?
I think that nationalism of any kind is bad. It is a form of pride that is based on being proud of the achievements of *other* people. Most often, the people most expressive of such pride are among the least productive contributors to their country. Also, if you look at the lifespans of most people, you will probably see that their most bitter fights and disagreements are with citizens in their own country.
Any pride that is based on generalizations, false assumptions and gloating over the achievements of others deserves to be ridiculed.
Your oil argument is silly: the oil that is imported is processed and used. After it's used, only pollutants remain, yet the entire industry and society that heavily depends on it still remains.
The reason it was obvious that you're not a E.U. citizen is because what you post sounds quite xenophobic and uninformed. Perhaps it helps to travel around a bit and see more of the world.
As for your share of land. Don't worry. No one is interested in moving into your parent's basement.
P.S. My policy is not to hide behind AC. If someone doesn't like what I post, so be it. I support my own words.
In my opinion, France is just as "bad" as the U.S. in terms of nationalistic pride and what not.... and I'm saying this as a citizen of one of their northern neighbours. I do know quite a few really cool French people though.
You're not a E.U. citizen, are you? If you were, you would have seen that there's been a move towards electing right-wing parties into power over the past year(s).
As for natural resources, the U.S. is one of the biggest oil importers in the world. We're in the same boat.
I think it's safe to say that every country has its share of bigoted idiots. The good news is that we don't need to let friendships between people be defined by borders: you will always be able to find that 1 person in another country who is closer to your way of thinking than many of your co-citizens. Even a very bigoted American online "friend" of mine of the "let's nuke the world" type appeared to have more prolonged and bitter fights with other Americans than with others.
If Europe blocks the new patent laws, then as a European I am very very glad. However, I share the belief that the U.S. will also potentially benefit from it. It's good. Let common sense and reason prevail so that we all come out better.
Your use of "pockets of the globe" makes it appear as though the "widespread anti-american sentiment" is limited in geographical location. Did you intend to use "areas" instead of "pockets"?
It does make sense to distinguish between a) anti-"american people/society" and b) anti-"american government/policies". What is building up around the world is more about (b) than about (a). In fact, a lot of (b) seems to be building up in the U.S. as well. It is my understanding that even in many traditionally anti-U.S. countries, the hatred falls for a large extent into the (b) category.
Your argument about projecting problems of a government onto the society does interest me philosophically. On the one hand, I must agree with you that it is not fair to project these actions on every single citizen (otherwise I would be negatively affected as well!), but on the other hand: a democratic society does support its government by elections and by paying taxes. If a society as a whole is not responsible for its government, then what is?
Actually, it also reaches the roots of american sentiment to speak of "pockets of resistance" when in fact, it's masses upon masses of resistance against the U.S. foreign policy, for a relevant part thanks to Bush's "I wanna invade Iraq and if you don't wanna, then I wanna do it even more" attitude. If the U.S. government's actions cannot be projected back onto its society (that showed at least 50-60% approval rating before the abuse pics), then is it fair to claim that the (current) U.S. govenment does not appropriately represent the U.S. citizens and thus the concept of Democracy as handled by the U.S. is not the optimal political system and it is dangerous to implement similar systems in other countries (e.g. Iraq) ?
It is of course true that no single people or country has a patent on manipulation and dirty tactics. Almost all countries have a tainted history.
So you are saying that if people dig up remains of beings that prove a common ancestor, you will switch your views? Are you sure that even in such a case you won't go "aha, but GOD put those remains there!"
Using "pure imagination" is a bit far-fetched for someone who bases his claims on superstition.
So your argumentation is that since we cannot "prove" down-to-earth theories of how everything came to pass, our only alternative is to resort to a primitive belief in a higher divine being?
Perhaps you can reply if your post was intended as funny or as a troll. Come on. Were the glaring spelling and grammatical mistakes intentional or don't you know how to write "surplus", "population", "continent", "support them", "definitely" and "they're"? For a person who sees death as a cure to stupidity, you certainly seem suicidal.
Even if you did word your reasoning well, it would still be glaringly incorrect. The mistakes just amplify what we both know is a dumb statement from you.
But isn't it kind of "losing faith" to believe there are other ways to salvation? I think it's a good thing for them to be more open-minded, but I wonder if such a movement does not lead them away from the core of that group and thus puts them in another "group" closer to agnosticism.
That's an interesting scenario. We could imagine this conversation:
God: "okay, now you have to save the Pok'Nor" Jesus: "argh, please.. I already saved bunches of worlds, it's getting tiresome to die over and over!"
Seriously... I would find it more likely that each world finds its own reasoning for why they are the way they are. If their biology is entirely different, perhaps their concept of "sin" (if they have one) will revolve around cleaning their suction caps... and that there was some dude many years ago with perfectly clean caps, but people threw mud at him and then he got dirty but in reality he didn't and now he's cleaner than ever and everyone should be thankful for that.
I would also expect them to be revolted at out savage and sickening methods of reproduction and utter lack of hygiene (by their standards, of course).
I do wonder though: does google allow the transferring (with or without accompanied transfer of money) of accounts at all or are they awarded on a per-person basis? In fact, the same account could be shared by a variety of people.
I also don't quite understand (among many things) the "God's image" bit. My guess is that it's meant in a very abstract sense and not a literal one. What I understand even less is why people refer to this entity as a "He". It would be more logical to use "It". I understand the cultural issues with male dominance and such, but we live in modern times now. Think about whether you have the same "feeling" if you say "It" or "Her". If you do not have the same feeling, then that means you were making an "image" in your mind, which - as far as I know - is not "allowed".
Are you saying that having more churches and having religion more "hands on" helps to make that religion more tolerant and/or progressive? Or is it more about the people who are like that and force their churches to be like that too?
What I regard as quite negative about christian religion (or pretty much anything) is fundamentalist people who reject anything that makes them think and who find all sorts of creative ways to make their views sound acceptable. I've even read one "explanation" on quite a big site about how Adam and Eve did not have belly buttons. It appears to be a bit of an American thing though. Apparently Jamaica is more relaxed in the religious areas as well.
I think the basis of society should just be about people getting along and not shooting eachother:-) The rest we can talk about in a civilized manner...
I believe your view sort of comes down what people refer to as "theistic evolution". Some people would consider you a "heretic" for that as you have the audacity to even consider evolution. I've seen one person argue passionately on her own evangelical website about how "evolution is 100% NOT true!" -- she had many "facts" against evolution, but never appeared to point to Darwin's works or good argumentations from the other side. Such people make it difficult to define a clear christian point of view on the subject.... or at least a reasonable and workable one.
In my opinion, it's "healthiest" for religion not to reject science, but rather to embrace it. Science is after all the *practical* exploration of "creation", where religion is the spiritual one. Since a relevant percentage of scientists IS religious, I don't see why such a situation is impossible. If humans can use "genetic algorithms" to solve computational problems, then I'm sure a higher-order creator can do the same. If you want to find this being in a specific religion, a pantheistic point of view (which Einstein apparently had) or a belief in a non-personal natural process... that's up to you. My semi-agnostic choice is with the latter two as none of the mainstream religions make any sense to me (for a multitude of reasons that we can base very lengthy discussions on).
As a btw: I had an interesting thought recently about evolution: given the assumption that the highest-evolved beings can master genetic manipulation, we could perhaps say that it is inherent in evolution to finally create beings that "escape" evolution almost entirely.
So you're saying that there's some sort of conspiracy at work to suppress honest criticism? Strangely, most criticism appears to be coming from people with a well-known and firm (emotional) investment in a specific religion. It's not about saying "look, there are some issues this theory doesn't address", it's about going: "this theory is bunk, come to my church".
I have not yet seen one creationist argue in favour of something that was not easily traced to his/her religion. The existence of a deity does not rule out evolutionary processes or genetic manipulation at the hands of aliens. When I mention this possibility to a creation "scientist", the response usually comes down to an argument along the lines of "but that's not in the bible".
Since there are dumb people on both sides of the debate, it could be that I've not yet come across the better debaters yet. Maybe you can offer some better insights on this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Aha, so now you are trying a transparent strawman fallacy. I questioned your own misguided beliefs about how E.U. citizens are educated, what their opinion about Americans is, etc. I then claimed that it you were most likely not an E.U. citizen, because if you were one, then your statements wouldn't seem so unrealistic compared to observations that anyone can make by living in a certain area. You are bending that into a "aha, so you like ALL Americans" type of statement.
If you look at my posting history, which you did, you will see that my criticism for the U.S. (as well as for the E.U.) falls into the (b) category.
You are the one using the term "stupid" on yourself. I can merely compromise and agree on that part of your self-assessment. They are not my words. Your intelligence or lack of intelligence does not shield you from not knowing what you're talking about as is evidenced by your displayed lack of understanding of the E.U. -- in fact, you apparently fail to lack understand the motivations of a significant number of people in your own country who choose to live "packed" in cities.
You are bringing the second world war into this debate. Yes, I'm glad the US got militarily involved back then. No, I am not thankful for it in the least to you personally.
I don't see what the second world war has to do with anything. I did not ask anybody and especially not you personally to militarily intervene in anything. Defeating extreme nationalism in Germany is an achievement of a coalition of many countries, including Canada, Australia, Russia, England, etc, etc. To my understanding, the U.S. even got involved in the war quite a bit later than the rest of the coalition. But, since you bring it up... yes, I do hear a lot of Americans gloating about how "they" liberated Europe, even though they were born decades after this event and are only loosely associated with it because of the country they happened to be born in.
I don't think it makes sense to consider a situation where all trading stops everywhere. Even in situations with militarily enforced embargoes, there will still be some sort of trade. In the case where a country's survival depends on it being to grow 100% of its own food, there are probably many other disastrous issues going on as well. Besides, I don't see how one would enforce food not being imported into the E.U., as it borders with so many different non-E.U. countries. I still maintain my oil-point: if OPEC decided today to cut production, the whole world will suffer.
I myself have often been in cities. I appreciate wide open spaces, but it's not essential for me. If having a lot of land for cheap is your dream/desire, then the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc are good places for you. Different things work for different people. I don't believe you will see that the population of many non-U.S. democratic countries is as a whole more depressed or unhappy than the one residing in the U.S.
I'm not saying you're fearful of the E.U., I just take issue with the part about "moving in" and pitying E.U. people. I feel that my experiences about E.U. citizens have some more relevance since I live here/there. My experience differs a lot from what you say my experience should/could be. Perhaps I misunderstood your intention and you can clarify.
You are right and I agree with what you say. What I said was a counter to the argument of the "eww, socialists!" type. In my country, the leftist parties got decimated in favour of rightist ones and there've been various articles about the slightly right-oriented tendencies throughout Europe as well.
I do predict that with the new countries, there may be a slightly increased push for right-wing parties as a result of fear for economic problems, masses of migrants, security, etc.
I've been to Denmark a couple years ago, btw. One of the things I remember (other than having a good time) is that on the street, people just seem to walk everywhere. Here, they tend to stick more to the right side.
Even if what you say regarding oil is true, once the enormous current supply runs out, it is almost certain there will be a major price hike. It won't matter much for the longer term if there's a bit left. You're the one missing the point, however: you said that the E.U. imports a lot of resources. I pointed out that it's not that much different for the U.S. and many other countries. Why do you think there's a trade deficit?
You did correctly point out one potential misunderstanding though: I said it was obvious that you were not a E.U. citizen because of the perceived uninformedness in your statement. This applied only to you and your displayed lackof understanding of the E.U. -- it can be twisted into "people outside the E.U. are all uninformed about everything".
Your claim of how I have been educated about how to perceive the U.S. is - once again - wrong. It is a common xenophobic argumentation to claim that people from group X raise their kids to hate you and thus it's okay to hate people of group X.
You're the one who brought up the "I won't let them move into my share of land" argument. Perhaps you care to explain what you meant with that. I'm absolutely not interested in your land or your future cattle. Besides, what's wrong with your parent's basement? Mine don't even have a big enough basement.
If you're pulling in historical dislike of French people towards the U.S., then perhaps you need to visit the statue of liberty (more often).
:-) I do appreciate the fact that you saw my cool 4 digit slashdot ID. See, true achievement is noticed by people even without gloating about it.
I will agree that there is nothing essentially wrong in pride in achievement, but as you can see from my posts (which you appear to appreciate keeping track of, thanks to me being logged in), gloating about the achievements of people who happen to be born in the same country and who don't even know you is silly. The fact that people have the right to be silly does not give me the obligation of taking them seriously.
Your statements show either a lack of experience with the people you criticize or you do so intentionally. If the latter case is true, then advising you to see more of the world is indeed pointless, as then your aim is to troll. It is not a far-fetched assumption that you do not wish to be identified with your own words.
You yourself have made the argument in favour of being logged in, so I'll just agree with you on that one
What's up with all the AC replies to my posts? Anyway, I will respond. Come on, I don't post anonymously, so you guys don't either. It's almost as if you're assuming there is something "bad" about your own post.
For starters, I don't agree at all with your massive xenophobic generalization. Perhaps you have only come across the kind of French people you mention. My mileage varies a LOT. Are you sure you're not one of those "Freedom Fries" people?
I think that nationalism of any kind is bad. It is a form of pride that is based on being proud of the achievements of *other* people. Most often, the people most expressive of such pride are among the least productive contributors to their country. Also, if you look at the lifespans of most people, you will probably see that their most bitter fights and disagreements are with citizens in their own country.
Any pride that is based on generalizations, false assumptions and gloating over the achievements of others deserves to be ridiculed.
Your oil argument is silly: the oil that is imported is processed and used. After it's used, only pollutants remain, yet the entire industry and society that heavily depends on it still remains.
The reason it was obvious that you're not a E.U. citizen is because what you post sounds quite xenophobic and uninformed. Perhaps it helps to travel around a bit and see more of the world.
As for your share of land. Don't worry. No one is interested in moving into your parent's basement.
P.S. My policy is not to hide behind AC. If someone doesn't like what I post, so be it. I support my own words.
In my opinion, France is just as "bad" as the U.S. in terms of nationalistic pride and what not.... and I'm saying this as a citizen of one of their northern neighbours. I do know quite a few really cool French people though.
I'd say that the idea of democracy first flourished in ancient Greece where philosophers were already working on these ideas about 2500 years ago.
:-)
If you're looking for "prior art" to democracy, that's where I'd go
You're not a E.U. citizen, are you? If you were, you would have seen that there's been a move towards electing right-wing parties into power over the past year(s).
As for natural resources, the U.S. is one of the biggest oil importers in the world. We're in the same boat.
I think it's safe to say that every country has its share of bigoted idiots. The good news is that we don't need to let friendships between people be defined by borders: you will always be able to find that 1 person in another country who is closer to your way of thinking than many of your co-citizens. Even a very bigoted American online "friend" of mine of the "let's nuke the world" type appeared to have more prolonged and bitter fights with other Americans than with others.
If Europe blocks the new patent laws, then as a European I am very very glad. However, I share the belief that the U.S. will also potentially benefit from it. It's good. Let common sense and reason prevail so that we all come out better.
Your use of "pockets of the globe" makes it appear as though the "widespread anti-american sentiment" is limited in geographical location. Did you intend to use "areas" instead of "pockets"?
It does make sense to distinguish between a) anti-"american people/society" and b) anti-"american government/policies". What is building up around the world is more about (b) than about (a). In fact, a lot of (b) seems to be building up in the U.S. as well. It is my understanding that even in many traditionally anti-U.S. countries, the hatred falls for a large extent into the (b) category.
Your argument about projecting problems of a government onto the society does interest me philosophically. On the one hand, I must agree with you that it is not fair to project these actions on every single citizen (otherwise I would be negatively affected as well!), but on the other hand: a democratic society does support its government by elections and by paying taxes. If a society as a whole is not responsible for its government, then what is?
Actually, it also reaches the roots of american sentiment to speak of "pockets of resistance" when in fact, it's masses upon masses of resistance against the U.S. foreign policy, for a relevant part thanks to Bush's "I wanna invade Iraq and if you don't wanna, then I wanna do it even more" attitude. If the U.S. government's actions cannot be projected back onto its society (that showed at least 50-60% approval rating before the abuse pics), then is it fair to claim that the (current) U.S. govenment does not appropriately represent the U.S. citizens and thus the concept of Democracy as handled by the U.S. is not the optimal political system and it is dangerous to implement similar systems in other countries (e.g. Iraq) ?
It is of course true that no single people or country has a patent on manipulation and dirty tactics. Almost all countries have a tainted history.
So you are saying that if people dig up remains of beings that prove a common ancestor, you will switch your views? Are you sure that even in such a case you won't go "aha, but GOD put those remains there!"
Using "pure imagination" is a bit far-fetched for someone who bases his claims on superstition.
Have you ever even READ Darwin's works?
So your argumentation is that since we cannot "prove" down-to-earth theories of how everything came to pass, our only alternative is to resort to a primitive belief in a higher divine being?
Btw, do you know what oil is made out of?
Perhaps you can reply if your post was intended as funny or as a troll. Come on. Were the glaring spelling and grammatical mistakes intentional or don't you know how to write "surplus", "population", "continent", "support them", "definitely" and "they're"? For a person who sees death as a cure to stupidity, you certainly seem suicidal.
Even if you did word your reasoning well, it would still be glaringly incorrect. The mistakes just amplify what we both know is a dumb statement from you.
But isn't it kind of "losing faith" to believe there are other ways to salvation? I think it's a good thing for them to be more open-minded, but I wonder if such a movement does not lead them away from the core of that group and thus puts them in another "group" closer to agnosticism.
.... and telling poor black people in africa that they shouldn't use condoms.
That's an interesting scenario. We could imagine this conversation:
God: "okay, now you have to save the Pok'Nor"
Jesus: "argh, please.. I already saved bunches of worlds, it's getting tiresome to die over and over!"
Seriously... I would find it more likely that each world finds its own reasoning for why they are the way they are. If their biology is entirely different, perhaps their concept of "sin" (if they have one) will revolve around cleaning their suction caps... and that there was some dude many years ago with perfectly clean caps, but people threw mud at him and then he got dirty but in reality he didn't and now he's cleaner than ever and everyone should be thankful for that.
I would also expect them to be revolted at out savage and sickening methods of reproduction and utter lack of hygiene (by their standards, of course).
So when I read "rakshit says new tech solutions are... etc", I thought they meant "RackShack" (now ev1) and someone pranked them into misspelling it.
I do wonder though: does google allow the transferring (with or without accompanied transfer of money) of accounts at all or are they awarded on a per-person basis? In fact, the same account could be shared by a variety of people.
I also don't quite understand (among many things) the "God's image" bit. My guess is that it's meant in a very abstract sense and not a literal one. What I understand even less is why people refer to this entity as a "He". It would be more logical to use "It". I understand the cultural issues with male dominance and such, but we live in modern times now. Think about whether you have the same "feeling" if you say "It" or "Her". If you do not have the same feeling, then that means you were making an "image" in your mind, which - as far as I know - is not "allowed".
:-) The rest we can talk about in a civilized manner...
Are you saying that having more churches and having religion more "hands on" helps to make that religion more tolerant and/or progressive? Or is it more about the people who are like that and force their churches to be like that too?
What I regard as quite negative about christian religion (or pretty much anything) is fundamentalist people who reject anything that makes them think and who find all sorts of creative ways to make their views sound acceptable. I've even read one "explanation" on quite a big site about how Adam and Eve did not have belly buttons. It appears to be a bit of an American thing though. Apparently Jamaica is more relaxed in the religious areas as well.
I think the basis of society should just be about people getting along and not shooting eachother
I believe your view sort of comes down what people refer to as "theistic evolution". Some people would consider you a "heretic" for that as you have the audacity to even consider evolution. I've seen one person argue passionately on her own evangelical website about how "evolution is 100% NOT true!" -- she had many "facts" against evolution, but never appeared to point to Darwin's works or good argumentations from the other side. Such people make it difficult to define a clear christian point of view on the subject.... or at least a reasonable and workable one.
In my opinion, it's "healthiest" for religion not to reject science, but rather to embrace it. Science is after all the *practical* exploration of "creation", where religion is the spiritual one. Since a relevant percentage of scientists IS religious, I don't see why such a situation is impossible. If humans can use "genetic algorithms" to solve computational problems, then I'm sure a higher-order creator can do the same. If you want to find this being in a specific religion, a pantheistic point of view (which Einstein apparently had) or a belief in a non-personal natural process... that's up to you. My semi-agnostic choice is with the latter two as none of the mainstream religions make any sense to me (for a multitude of reasons that we can base very lengthy discussions on).
As a btw: I had an interesting thought recently about evolution: given the assumption that the highest-evolved beings can master genetic manipulation, we could perhaps say that it is inherent in evolution to finally create beings that "escape" evolution almost entirely.
Cool :-) I always do a 'xset r rate 250 30' when I'm typing code and a 'xset r rate 175 150' when I'm playing a game.
So you're saying that there's some sort of conspiracy at work to suppress honest criticism? Strangely, most criticism appears to be coming from people with a well-known and firm (emotional) investment in a specific religion. It's not about saying "look, there are some issues this theory doesn't address", it's about going: "this theory is bunk, come to my church".
I have not yet seen one creationist argue in favour of something that was not easily traced to his/her religion. The existence of a deity does not rule out evolutionary processes or genetic manipulation at the hands of aliens. When I mention this possibility to a creation "scientist", the response usually comes down to an argument along the lines of "but that's not in the bible".
Since there are dumb people on both sides of the debate, it could be that I've not yet come across the better debaters yet. Maybe you can offer some better insights on this issue.