I agree that making a shoehorn out of teflon wouldn't be covered by the original wood shoehorn patent, but wouldn't the teflon shoehorn become obvious once the wood shoehorn patent was filed?
I think you've misunderstood memetics a little. Memes are not generally parasitic, they're symbiotic. An idea which spreads because people find it useful and logical (for example, Newton's theory of gravity) is as much a meme as ideas which spread because people find them comforting (such as life after death). That's why the virus analogy isn't appropriate. At best, it applies to a subset of memes.
Regarding the heliocentric model, it wasn't accepted within the scientific community until the 17th century, based on Kepler's work on planetary orbits (and later, Newton's work on gravity). Before then, it was an unproven theory which did a worse job at explaining observations than the earth-centric model. There was no direct experimental evidence for it until 1838, when it first became possible to measure the parallax of stars.
The catholic church had a short period of resistance against the idea, but the ban against books advocating heliocentrism was lifted in 1758, and the ban specifically against Galileo's book was lifted in 1835.
Many priests within the Catholic Church were interested in the ideas of heliocentrism, even before they were proven, and the leaders felt the need to purge unorthodox doctrines to keep the church unified. The ban was more about politics and internal power struggles than about religion's struggle against science.
In Socialist Sweden, you pay taxes to go to church.
No, seriously, Swedes by default pay a small tax to the church their parents once registered them to. People have to make an active choice to leave the church.
I'm a naturalist (that is, I don't believe in the supernatural). I live in a secularised country (Sweden) where non-religiousness is the norm, and frankly, I think many atheists are embarrassing. Many of them seem as fanatical as the worst religious people, and take every chance to put down religion and proclaim what idiots its believers are.
I can understand that atheists who are in a minority have a need to strengthen their beliefs and gang together against the world outside, but where I live, it just makes them seem pathetic.
That's not quite what Christians believe either. Catholics believe you're put in purgatory for your sins after your death, with a chance to accept salvation from Christ. Confessing your sins to a priest enables you to bypass purgatory and go directly to heaven. I'm not sure where Hell comes in according to Catholics.
Protestants are more vague on the subject, since the concept of Hell has very little support in the Bible and is mostly based on the traditions of the medieval Christian church. Not all protestants believe in Hell. But both protestants and Catholics agree that believing in Christ and accepting salvation from him is the path to heaven.
I don't know what the Orthodox Christian church (common in Eastern Europe and Russia) has to say on the matter. Some American-inspired modern churches seem to take the simplistic view that faith=heaven, non-faith=hell.
As far as I know, child molestation is not more common among catholic priests than among other professions. The scandal was based on the fact that the catholic church covered up their priests' "mistakes", and just relocated them to a new parish.
Abortion is not necessarily the easy way out. Abortion is not a pleasant experience, physically or emotionally, and it may be tempting for the mother to keep the child, even if she knows it will be raised under less than adequate conditions. If you don't believe abortion is equivalent to murder, abortion may be the most responsible thing to do.
Also, I live in a secularised country (Sweden) where all school children have sex ed, contraceptives are freely sold to all ages, and abstaining from pre-marital sex is seen as a little weird. We have virtually no problems with teenage pregnancies. Most kids have their first sexual experiences some time during high school, but they don't become particularly promiscuous, and most settle into monoagamous relationships (with or without marrying). When people eventually marry, the reason is commonly to have legal protection in case something unexpected happens, especially for the children's sake.
In case you've heard the rumour about Sweden having the world's highest suicide rates, it's a myth.
So do the refutations. For example, a perfect God should have no problem inducing genetic diversity.
Then the whole discussion has been pointless, since everything can be explained away by simply saying "A perfect God should have no trouble making it appear so and so." Why go to the trouble of finding scientific arguments for creationism, when you already have a catch-all explanation for everything?
"Questioning" evolution isn't science. Presenting evidence and tests to counter specific claims made by evolution would be. And scientists do that. Creationists try, and fail, a lot.
How can you present evidence against evolution without questioning it?
Does it bother anyone that they seem to not be able to challenge the validity of any of the evidence? That issue seems to be way more important than the topic here...
That's because the court only ruled to give the teacher immunity against being sued, not on the issue itself.
No, the bottleneck isn't derived from genetic imperfections. If all humans and other land species descended from a handful of individuals 4 500 years ago, there wouldn't be time to create the genetic diversity we see in them today. If Noah and every creature he carried on the ark were gifted with "perfect DNA", it would only explain why they didn't die from inbreeding. It doesn't explain the genetic diversity we have today.
There's also the tooth fairy argument. We can't conclusively rule out that the tooth fairy exists, so what are we to say when someone asks us if we believe in the tooth fairy?
The early Christians were accused of being atheists because they didn't believe in any of the Roman gods. Technically, anyone who doesn't believe in every god there is, can be said to be an atheist.
But God DID override people's choice to sin, by causing a flood that wiped out all the sinners, so the world could start over again. There are also numerous accounts in the Bible where God performs miracles to save some people from the choices of other people (for example, by dividing the Red Sea to save the Israelites from the Egyptians' choice to hunt them down).
If the Bible is correct, God can, and does, interfere directly with the world to override people's free will.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that making a shoehorn out of teflon wouldn't be covered by the original wood shoehorn patent, but wouldn't the teflon shoehorn become obvious once the wood shoehorn patent was filed?
I think you've misunderstood memetics a little. Memes are not generally parasitic, they're symbiotic. An idea which spreads because people find it useful and logical (for example, Newton's theory of gravity) is as much a meme as ideas which spread because people find them comforting (such as life after death). That's why the virus analogy isn't appropriate. At best, it applies to a subset of memes.
Then the virus analogy isn't appropriate, since ideas are generally symbiotic in nature.
According to that logic, all popular ideas are "mental infectious agents".
Regarding the heliocentric model, it wasn't accepted within the scientific community until the 17th century, based on Kepler's work on planetary orbits (and later, Newton's work on gravity). Before then, it was an unproven theory which did a worse job at explaining observations than the earth-centric model. There was no direct experimental evidence for it until 1838, when it first became possible to measure the parallax of stars.
The catholic church had a short period of resistance against the idea, but the ban against books advocating heliocentrism was lifted in 1758, and the ban specifically against Galileo's book was lifted in 1835.
Many priests within the Catholic Church were interested in the ideas of heliocentrism, even before they were proven, and the leaders felt the need to purge unorthodox doctrines to keep the church unified. The ban was more about politics and internal power struggles than about religion's struggle against science.
In Socialist Sweden, you pay taxes to go to church.
No, seriously, Swedes by default pay a small tax to the church their parents once registered them to. People have to make an active choice to leave the church.
I'm a naturalist (that is, I don't believe in the supernatural). I live in a secularised country (Sweden) where non-religiousness is the norm, and frankly, I think many atheists are embarrassing. Many of them seem as fanatical as the worst religious people, and take every chance to put down religion and proclaim what idiots its believers are.
I can understand that atheists who are in a minority have a need to strengthen their beliefs and gang together against the world outside, but where I live, it just makes them seem pathetic.
That's very vague. It sounds like they're still officially against the use of condoms in the vast majority of situations.
That's not quite what Christians believe either. Catholics believe you're put in purgatory for your sins after your death, with a chance to accept salvation from Christ. Confessing your sins to a priest enables you to bypass purgatory and go directly to heaven. I'm not sure where Hell comes in according to Catholics.
Protestants are more vague on the subject, since the concept of Hell has very little support in the Bible and is mostly based on the traditions of the medieval Christian church. Not all protestants believe in Hell. But both protestants and Catholics agree that believing in Christ and accepting salvation from him is the path to heaven.
I don't know what the Orthodox Christian church (common in Eastern Europe and Russia) has to say on the matter. Some American-inspired modern churches seem to take the simplistic view that faith=heaven, non-faith=hell.
As far as I know, child molestation is not more common among catholic priests than among other professions. The scandal was based on the fact that the catholic church covered up their priests' "mistakes", and just relocated them to a new parish.
Stop confusing me! Now I have no idea who you're trying to offend!
If that man was the one the gospels are based on, then Jesus did exist.
Abortion is not necessarily the easy way out. Abortion is not a pleasant experience, physically or emotionally, and it may be tempting for the mother to keep the child, even if she knows it will be raised under less than adequate conditions. If you don't believe abortion is equivalent to murder, abortion may be the most responsible thing to do.
Also, I live in a secularised country (Sweden) where all school children have sex ed, contraceptives are freely sold to all ages, and abstaining from pre-marital sex is seen as a little weird. We have virtually no problems with teenage pregnancies. Most kids have their first sexual experiences some time during high school, but they don't become particularly promiscuous, and most settle into monoagamous relationships (with or without marrying). When people eventually marry, the reason is commonly to have legal protection in case something unexpected happens, especially for the children's sake.
In case you've heard the rumour about Sweden having the world's highest suicide rates, it's a myth.
So do the refutations. For example, a perfect God should have no problem inducing genetic diversity.
Then the whole discussion has been pointless, since everything can be explained away by simply saying "A perfect God should have no trouble making it appear so and so." Why go to the trouble of finding scientific arguments for creationism, when you already have a catch-all explanation for everything?
Isn't that exactly what the creationists are doing?
"Questioning" evolution isn't science. Presenting evidence and tests to counter specific claims made by evolution would be. And scientists do that. Creationists try, and fail, a lot.
How can you present evidence against evolution without questioning it?
Well, at least the post is 2: Informative now.
Does it bother anyone that they seem to not be able to challenge the validity of any of the evidence? That issue seems to be way more important than the topic here...
That's because the court only ruled to give the teacher immunity against being sued, not on the issue itself.
No, the bottleneck isn't derived from genetic imperfections. If all humans and other land species descended from a handful of individuals 4 500 years ago, there wouldn't be time to create the genetic diversity we see in them today. If Noah and every creature he carried on the ark were gifted with "perfect DNA", it would only explain why they didn't die from inbreeding. It doesn't explain the genetic diversity we have today.
Because then you would be my cousin.
That and, by natural law, Eve was Adams sister.
So what? According to evolution, we are all descendants from the same single-celled organism.
There's also the tooth fairy argument. We can't conclusively rule out that the tooth fairy exists, so what are we to say when someone asks us if we believe in the tooth fairy?
It's not just argument by authority, it's also circular. Without assuming God's existence, there's no reason to believe the Bible is correct.
The early Christians were accused of being atheists because they didn't believe in any of the Roman gods. Technically, anyone who doesn't believe in every god there is, can be said to be an atheist.
According to the summary, the teacher was espousing his anti-religous views in the class room, i.e, opinion, not fact.
But God DID override people's choice to sin, by causing a flood that wiped out all the sinners, so the world could start over again. There are also numerous accounts in the Bible where God performs miracles to save some people from the choices of other people (for example, by dividing the Red Sea to save the Israelites from the Egyptians' choice to hunt them down).
If the Bible is correct, God can, and does, interfere directly with the world to override people's free will.