I can confirm that my bigpond address appears to have been given out. I collect my spam in a folder (since there's not terribly much of it *yet*) in preparation for if I ever implement a bayesian filter of some sort.
I have a few e-mails in there in which all the recipients have bigpond accounts and nothing else. Sometimes the addresses span a range, sometimes they all begin with the same letter as my account.
In another logical sense it can be proven (to the parent poster's satisfaction) that the Monothiestic religion's God ~does~ cease to exist simply because the parent poster chooses not to believe in him.
Definately a week or more is a good test. You don't know what people are going to try, or the critical task they only do once every few weeks that they forgot about.
I set up a Linux demo for some place and let them experiment with it for around two weeks, but even that probably wasn't enough.
Off topic, your signature says It's your god. They're your rules. *You* go to hell..
This misses the point. Monotheistic religions don't believe their God ceases to exist outside the walls of their churches. They say He created everything - and whether or not you believe in Him you are still subject to His rule. In other words, your signature is nonsensical to those of such faiths - which is exactly the people it sounds like you are addressing. It's like a foreigner is being booked by a policeman for speeding, and saying to him "it's your country, your rules. *You* pay the speeding ticket". Even though the rules apply to him and he was the one doing the speeding.
The danger with this, of course, is that everyone will start using the "DD" (Dumbass Distro). Developers will start to develop programs assuming that the user is running as root. We'll begin to find "DD"-only applications.
Eventually the "DD" will become the accepted norm, while the "PD" will become even more difficult to use. And we'll have made the world just a little bit more insecure.
Instead, I'm happy to postpone Linux coming out in any major way on the desktop in return for keeping the user/root distinction. By spending more time we can make it easier to use naturally. Those who can handle it will. Those who can't will slowly be exposed until they are ready, as it becomes more popular.
That is exactly spot on. My mother does the same thing - has trouble remembering th concepts, and only remembering the process.
But when you said it today, it reminded me of the slashdot article a few days back about autistic savants. Remember the story said their problem was that they only recalled the exact scene. If the shadows moved then they felt disoriented like it was a new place. Whereas for most people we can pick up concepts that allow us to comprehend it as being the same location.
I wonder why this is, that with computer people have trouble learning the concepts at all? Why can't they learn the principles as they do for everything else in life? Maybe it's just time and practice, for them to realise that "File->Save As" is present in multiple applications, not just the one. Maybe it's the fault of inconsistent UI design - so that on occasion where it's different they notice and assume that no application is the same.
Some people play who they'd like to meet (a girl), some play who they'd like to be (a guy). I sometimes do both. When I'm roleplaying I sometimes choose a girl because I have a good idea for a story. Sometimes, or usually, I choose a male because they seem to fit the role I imagine better, or they're who I'd like to be - or someone I'd like to try being for a time.
The Roman Catholic church has a lot to answer for. As for pentacostals - while I don't like that group much I don't understand your reference to their desire for suicide and murder of gays, lesbians, etc? That part is quite obviously flamebait. Pentacostals want the conversion of those people, not their death. As for blacks and immigrants that sounds outrageous, though I guess I can imagine it happening in America some time earlier. But you can't stain the name of a group for the actions of a minority in a fixed time. You would find few/no pentacostals today that reject blacks/immigrants.
On topic, I think you are right about most of that. Christians shouldn't reject non-Christian games since there are many good ones out there.
However, I disagree with your description of the unity between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I am a protestant and I do not accept the RC at all. We disagree on the most fundamental question - salvation. The RC's hold a form of works in order to obtain salvation, while protestants denounce all works leading to salvation - salvation is a work of God alone. Protestants also claim that Scripture alone is authoritative, while the Catholics accept many apocryphal books, along with decisions of the RC Church and Pope's. Considering these differences we are a long way from unity.
The artwork for that screenshot was using the warcraft 2 cd's art as far as I know. In other words, you have to own a legal copy of WC2 to make it look the same. For those that don't own WC2 there is a (IMHO) pretty bad looking art set available.
I thought you weren't going to reply, I was hoping you would.
Disagree all you want - there is no credible evidence that the earth is not billions of years old - at least evidence that would convince scientists working in the related fields.
This is what I meant about throwing elephants. You summarise complex issues into one statement arguments. I haven't even started talking with you about the problems with dating, and you come up with summary statements like this. Just ditch it unless you want to go through them one by one in detail.
Taking me out of context, I see. I guess I'll have to restate it - BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST REPLICATING CELLS HAVE BEEN CREATED - THEREFORE, HOW THE FIRST CELL CAME ABOUT IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
Oh yes, the evil creationists taking someone out of context *again*. I've already said I agree with you that biological evolution does not answer the question about where the first cell came from. There's no need to shout. But you'd be a fool to think that it isn't important for biological evolution if it cannot be demonstrated reasonably that the first cell could come about. Now if you believe it's God that put it there, that's one thing. But if you think that it came there by chance mixing of certain chemicals, etc, then that's another thing. We know most/all of the possibilities of how that first cell came about - stop pretending it's not important. If you believe it's God, we'll discuss one thing. If you think it's chance we'll discuss another.
A strawman rebuttal to the link I provided.
Woah ho! You sure make a pursuasive argument. You summarised the whole response as a strawman? And you think I should be pursuaded?!? A one sentence answer to the creationist page??? I think you should do better than that. Why, exactly, is it a strawman?
Are you serious? I think that you need a reality check - you seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy. And you seem to think that creationism is taken seriously by scientists in anything other than a political sense.
I am no fool, I've seen some of the things that famous evolutionists have said, such as Gould. I know that many of them push evolution precisely because they have materialistic beliefs. They work with the attitude that evolution must be right, rather than looking at the evidence for the best answer. There are creationists who do that to. I don't care what you say about a reality check. You can bet that if evolution ever destroyed the creationist position totally, that the next thing on the agenda would be Christianity. It is inevitable. People may not think it now - but once there is no real world evidence for Christianity, most/all will begin to question their faith. Evolutionists do it now. They act patronising and arrogant to the simple minded creationists who can't see past their faith to the pure facts of science. Once there is no scientific hold for creationism, it will be resigned to minority groups.
Of course, I'm not worried about any of this - I have examined the evidence for evolution and creation quite a lot, and so far the evolutionist position is weak. I've offered to look at it in detail with you, but...
No, you don't. You use (post) strawman arguements, and have the mind of a "true believer". Your dismissal of the virtually unanimus agreement by scientists in the fields of biology, astronomy, physics, and geology, along with agreement with mainstream Christian denominations proves it.
...you tell me I use strawman arguments without explaining why. You tell me I have the mind of a "true believer" as if that's a problem, yet you haven't discussed any arguments with me - instead you've made pathetic appeals to the "amazing numbers" who accept evolution and "the overwhelming evidence". And now you tell me there's a unanimous consensus about the facts of evolution when I can assure you that:
a) It is not unanimous, a few significantly e
That's my point though - evolutionists talk so quickly of changing skin color going from africa, middle east, to europe, etc, and how we should expect darker or lighter skin colors in these places.
Fair enough for those who *already* had light or dark skinned genes, or if a light skinned man found a dark skinned lady to be a wife, their children would then possess those genes.
But all this talk is quick, what about those who first arrived? The first time all these genes for varying skin color came into existence.
You use some confusing terms here. You assert that evolution was the process by which we came here, and yet you say we have been picking the most attractive mates since we were created. Are you a theistic evolutionist?
Unfortunately though this doesn't make sense. Mostly because people tend to choose race over attractiveness, and that results in the degredation of appearance in a species/race. It seems that the best way for us to produce more beautiful children is to choose partners from different races, but that doesn't tend to happen for many reasons - location, culture, religion, preference, etc.
The other problem is that breeding attractiveness requires a few assumptions: 1. That the attractive genes already exists, and we are merely selecting (through natural selection) those who posess it. Because most/all genetic mutations produce less attractive humans. 2. That the less attractive people will be unable to find partners, or if they do they will be infertile or their children will prove unsuccessful. The fact of the matter is that unattractive people can do well, and attractive people often end up in the dud careers without good breeding prospects. Often those people aren't interested in having children, preferring the "freedom" that single life provides.
Just doesn't sound right to me. You say to look around and we can see we are getting more attractive. But I say, "where?" I see no evidence that this is happening. I see beauty products being put into people's hands, but what's new? In New York I would *expect* more attractive people precisely because it is one of the richest cities in the world. Not that the people there are more attractive, but rather that they have the money to purchase the products to enhance their appearance. And also that you would often see the beautiful people used on advertisements more commonly there than elsewhere, giving the impression that there are more than there really are.
It sounds pretty strange and unnatural to say on the evolution timeline we are young as humans. When were we humans and when were we not? If I believed in evolution this statement would make no sense - we've always been what we are, and at the same time never been what any of our ancestors were. How do you know that before our ape/human common ancestor that those ancestors did not also pursue the most attractive of the species? If evolution were true, then you can bet that 1 million years from now what our descendants find sexy will be repulsive to us.
How the hell do you work out that people are more attractive now than they used to be? If you say we are making ourselves attracive, then as someone pointed out those are non-genetic traits that are not carried on. As for breeding, people have *always* tried to find the most attractive person. I don't see how our habits are any different from before.
I left some time, in case you hadn't noticed some of my other posts, but it's been quite a few hours.
Yep, like all scientific theories, it is falsafable. And since there is overwhelming evidence in the fields of geology, astronomy, and physics that the earth is billions of years old, there is plenty of time for evolution to occur.
Stop trying to drop elephants into every line. It was unecessary to say there's overwhelming evidence, because again I disagree. I'm interested in specifics, not general copycat lines.
Nope - it doesn't matter if the first life arose from natural causes, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, your God, or aliens from planet Zork - that wouldn't prove that evolution was false.
And to think of all the times evolutionists accuse creationists of being able to fall back on the "God did it" argument, making our position unscientific. If you can invent all manner of excuses, then what makes you so sure this is scientific to believe at all? Here is an excellent quote:
If we are allowed to propose essentially anything (aliens, parallel universes, 1020 planets, extra dimensions, time travel, etc., etc.) in order to uphold our theory then how will it ever be possible for that theory to be truly falsifiable? As clever and imaginative as we humans are, wouldnâ(TM)t we be able toâ"donâ(TM)t weâ"contrive just about anything that would allow us to retain the position or theory that we cherish?
Be careful not to be hypocritical, accusing us of unscientific positions when you yourself propose unscientific propositions. You tell me - did that first life come from God, pink unicorns or chance? What you believe, not what is possible.
But as I said, it really doesn't matter where the first life came from.
It matters if your personal position is naturalistic atheism. If you believe it was God then we have a whole set of different problems to discuss. But this question is important.
How about this? It's a listing of a set of 29 evidences for macroevoultion.
How about this, a reply in which I posted a link to a rebuttal of those 29 evidences? How about you pick one of those you consider very convincing and we'll look at it in detail? I'm not going to skim over 29 examples - it is far better to examine one in depth.
While I don't know what percentage of scientists working in the areas related to evolution or the age of the earth who are Christian, it is a significant number, and it is one of the reasons I have mentioned numerous times that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution - or are they atheists in disguise?:).
They are considered allies of evolution only so long as there is resistence. If the creationist movement was to ever be utterly destroyed, then I imagine the atheistic evolutionists would then move to attack Christian evolutionists. For now they tolerate Christian evolutionists because it provides a useful (but irrational) argument with which to pursuade other Christians to accept evolution. I couldn't care less about numbers as I said before - I'm interested in truth. And I've seen a great deal of lies and misrepresentations on behalf of evolutionists, and creationists have been accused of it too. That's why I want to look at specifics in detail, because that's how I'll be pursuaded - not by generalities that only reveal an ability to repeat what one has heard other say.
Well, my wife is a Christian biologist, and is also an evolutionist - she got her degree from a Methodist college, where evolution is taught as part of the normal curiculum.
And you yourself are not a Christian? Tell me, in how much detail did she analyse the creationist position before rejecting it?
Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? Duane Gish? Ken Hovind? It's ok if you want to dist
Slashdot Mirror
I can confirm that my bigpond address appears to have been given out. I collect my spam in a folder (since there's not terribly much of it *yet*) in preparation for if I ever implement a bayesian filter of some sort.
I have a few e-mails in there in which all the recipients have bigpond accounts and nothing else. Sometimes the addresses span a range, sometimes they all begin with the same letter as my account.
I'd like to see you prove that.
I set up a Linux demo for some place and let them experiment with it for around two weeks, but even that probably wasn't enough.
Off topic, your signature says It's your god. They're your rules. *You* go to hell..
This misses the point. Monotheistic religions don't believe their God ceases to exist outside the walls of their churches. They say He created everything - and whether or not you believe in Him you are still subject to His rule. In other words, your signature is nonsensical to those of such faiths - which is exactly the people it sounds like you are addressing. It's like a foreigner is being booked by a policeman for speeding, and saying to him "it's your country, your rules. *You* pay the speeding ticket". Even though the rules apply to him and he was the one doing the speeding.
Not the best analogy, but hopefully it helps :)
Eventually the "DD" will become the accepted norm, while the "PD" will become even more difficult to use. And we'll have made the world just a little bit more insecure.
Instead, I'm happy to postpone Linux coming out in any major way on the desktop in return for keeping the user/root distinction. By spending more time we can make it easier to use naturally. Those who can handle it will. Those who can't will slowly be exposed until they are ready, as it becomes more popular.
You could put her on evolution depending on the speed of her comp. I have 188mb of e-mails so far and it's running fine.
But when you said it today, it reminded me of the slashdot article a few days back about autistic savants. Remember the story said their problem was that they only recalled the exact scene. If the shadows moved then they felt disoriented like it was a new place. Whereas for most people we can pick up concepts that allow us to comprehend it as being the same location.
I wonder why this is, that with computer people have trouble learning the concepts at all? Why can't they learn the principles as they do for everything else in life? Maybe it's just time and practice, for them to realise that "File->Save As" is present in multiple applications, not just the one. Maybe it's the fault of inconsistent UI design - so that on occasion where it's different they notice and assume that no application is the same.
Some people play who they'd like to meet (a girl), some play who they'd like to be (a guy). I sometimes do both. When I'm roleplaying I sometimes choose a girl because I have a good idea for a story. Sometimes, or usually, I choose a male because they seem to fit the role I imagine better, or they're who I'd like to be - or someone I'd like to try being for a time.
The Roman Catholic church has a lot to answer for. As for pentacostals - while I don't like that group much I don't understand your reference to their desire for suicide and murder of gays, lesbians, etc?
That part is quite obviously flamebait. Pentacostals want the conversion of those people, not their death. As for blacks and immigrants that sounds outrageous, though I guess I can imagine it happening in America some time earlier. But you can't stain the name of a group for the actions of a minority in a fixed time. You would find few/no pentacostals today that reject blacks/immigrants.
On topic, I think you are right about most of that. Christians shouldn't reject non-Christian games since there are many good ones out there.
However, I disagree with your description of the unity between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I am a protestant and I do not accept the RC at all. We disagree on the most fundamental question - salvation. The RC's hold a form of works in order to obtain salvation, while protestants denounce all works leading to salvation - salvation is a work of God alone. Protestants also claim that Scripture alone is authoritative, while the Catholics accept many apocryphal books, along with decisions of the RC Church and Pope's. Considering these differences we are a long way from unity.
Christians can laugh at that too :)
Whoah, shut down on Sunday? That sounds terrible :)
Precisely. Some of my male Christian friends are close to the hacker personality, and almost all of them are gamers.
See this post.
The artwork for that screenshot was using the warcraft 2 cd's art as far as I know. In other words, you have to own a legal copy of WC2 to make it look the same. For those that don't own WC2 there is a (IMHO) pretty bad looking art set available.
How do you feel about freeciv?
You can find it anywhere. As I'm australian, this was my server of preference - http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/gentoo/distfiles/
Disagree all you want - there is no credible evidence that the earth is not billions of years old - at least evidence that would convince scientists working in the related fields.
This is what I meant about throwing elephants. You summarise complex issues into one statement arguments. I haven't even started talking with you about the problems with dating, and you come up with summary statements like this. Just ditch it unless you want to go through them one by one in detail.
Taking me out of context, I see. I guess I'll have to restate it - BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST REPLICATING CELLS HAVE BEEN CREATED - THEREFORE, HOW THE FIRST CELL CAME ABOUT IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
Oh yes, the evil creationists taking someone out of context *again*. I've already said I agree with you that biological evolution does not answer the question about where the first cell came from. There's no need to shout. But you'd be a fool to think that it isn't important for biological evolution if it cannot be demonstrated reasonably that the first cell could come about. Now if you believe it's God that put it there, that's one thing. But if you think that it came there by chance mixing of certain chemicals, etc, then that's another thing. We know most/all of the possibilities of how that first cell came about - stop pretending it's not important. If you believe it's God, we'll discuss one thing. If you think it's chance we'll discuss another.
A strawman rebuttal to the link I provided.
Woah ho! You sure make a pursuasive argument. You summarised the whole response as a strawman? And you think I should be pursuaded?!? A one sentence answer to the creationist page??? I think you should do better than that. Why, exactly, is it a strawman?
Are you serious? I think that you need a reality check - you seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy. And you seem to think that creationism is taken seriously by scientists in anything other than a political sense.
I am no fool, I've seen some of the things that famous evolutionists have said, such as Gould. I know that many of them push evolution precisely because they have materialistic beliefs. They work with the attitude that evolution must be right, rather than looking at the evidence for the best answer. There are creationists who do that to. I don't care what you say about a reality check. You can bet that if evolution ever destroyed the creationist position totally, that the next thing on the agenda would be Christianity. It is inevitable. People may not think it now - but once there is no real world evidence for Christianity, most/all will begin to question their faith. Evolutionists do it now. They act patronising and arrogant to the simple minded creationists who can't see past their faith to the pure facts of science. Once there is no scientific hold for creationism, it will be resigned to minority groups.
Of course, I'm not worried about any of this - I have examined the evidence for evolution and creation quite a lot, and so far the evolutionist position is weak. I've offered to look at it in detail with you, but...
No, you don't. You use (post) strawman arguements, and have the mind of a "true believer". Your dismissal of the virtually unanimus agreement by scientists in the fields of biology, astronomy, physics, and geology, along with agreement with mainstream Christian denominations proves it.
a) It is not unanimous, a few significantly e
Indeed I would :)
That's my point though - evolutionists talk so quickly of changing skin color going from africa, middle east, to europe, etc, and how we should expect darker or lighter skin colors in these places.
Fair enough for those who *already* had light or dark skinned genes, or if a light skinned man found a dark skinned lady to be a wife, their children would then possess those genes.
But all this talk is quick, what about those who first arrived? The first time all these genes for varying skin color came into existence.
You use some confusing terms here. You assert that evolution was the process by which we came here, and yet you say we have been picking the most attractive mates since we were created. Are you a theistic evolutionist?
Unfortunately though this doesn't make sense. Mostly because people tend to choose race over attractiveness, and that results in the degredation of appearance in a species/race. It seems that the best way for us to produce more beautiful children is to choose partners from different races, but that doesn't tend to happen for many reasons - location, culture, religion, preference, etc.
The other problem is that breeding attractiveness requires a few assumptions:
1. That the attractive genes already exists, and we are merely selecting (through natural selection) those who posess it. Because most/all genetic mutations produce less attractive humans.
2. That the less attractive people will be unable to find partners, or if they do they will be infertile or their children will prove unsuccessful. The fact of the matter is that unattractive people can do well, and attractive people often end up in the dud careers without good breeding prospects. Often those people aren't interested in having children, preferring the "freedom" that single life provides.
Just doesn't sound right to me. You say to look around and we can see we are getting more attractive. But I say, "where?" I see no evidence that this is happening. I see beauty products being put into people's hands, but what's new? In New York I would *expect* more attractive people precisely because it is one of the richest cities in the world. Not that the people there are more attractive, but rather that they have the money to purchase the products to enhance their appearance. And also that you would often see the beautiful people used on advertisements more commonly there than elsewhere, giving the impression that there are more than there really are.
It sounds pretty strange and unnatural to say on the evolution timeline we are young as humans. When were we humans and when were we not? If I believed in evolution this statement would make no sense - we've always been what we are, and at the same time never been what any of our ancestors were. How do you know that before our ape/human common ancestor that those ancestors did not also pursue the most attractive of the species? If evolution were true, then you can bet that 1 million years from now what our descendants find sexy will be repulsive to us.
Btw, I don't have darkened skin. Most Australians don't, theres a few who spend excessive time outdoors who do.
Though I do have a question - if my skin was darkenned in Australia (where I happen to live) then would my children too have darker skin?
How does this explain inheritence of such traits?
Yes - and you are an evolutionist. Nice to meet you.
PBS is rubbish, just because they say it's so doesn't mean we should accept it.
Someone else has posted a critique I noticed.
It doesn't help that I don't think evolution is rational - I find your statement very bold that Africans ARE black because the PBS says so.
How the hell do you work out that people are more attractive now than they used to be? If you say we are making ourselves attracive, then as someone pointed out those are non-genetic traits that are not carried on. As for breeding, people have *always* tried to find the most attractive person. I don't see how our habits are any different from before.
Yep, like all scientific theories, it is falsafable. And since there is overwhelming evidence in the fields of geology, astronomy, and physics that the earth is billions of years old, there is plenty of time for evolution to occur.
Stop trying to drop elephants into every line. It was unecessary to say there's overwhelming evidence, because again I disagree. I'm interested in specifics, not general copycat lines.
Nope - it doesn't matter if the first life arose from natural causes, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, your God, or aliens from planet Zork - that wouldn't prove that evolution was false.
And to think of all the times evolutionists accuse creationists of being able to fall back on the "God did it" argument, making our position unscientific. If you can invent all manner of excuses, then what makes you so sure this is scientific to believe at all? Here is an excellent quote:
Be careful not to be hypocritical, accusing us of unscientific positions when you yourself propose unscientific propositions. You tell me - did that first life come from God, pink unicorns or chance? What you believe, not what is possible.
But as I said, it really doesn't matter where the first life came from.
It matters if your personal position is naturalistic atheism. If you believe it was God then we have a whole set of different problems to discuss. But this question is important.
How about this? It's a listing of a set of 29 evidences for macroevoultion.
How about this, a reply in which I posted a link to a rebuttal of those 29 evidences? How about you pick one of those you consider very convincing and we'll look at it in detail? I'm not going to skim over 29 examples - it is far better to examine one in depth.
While I don't know what percentage of scientists working in the areas related to evolution or the age of the earth who are Christian, it is a significant number, and it is one of the reasons I have mentioned numerous times that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution - or are they atheists in disguise? :).
They are considered allies of evolution only so long as there is resistence. If the creationist movement was to ever be utterly destroyed, then I imagine the atheistic evolutionists would then move to attack Christian evolutionists. For now they tolerate Christian evolutionists because it provides a useful (but irrational) argument with which to pursuade other Christians to accept evolution. I couldn't care less about numbers as I said before - I'm interested in truth. And I've seen a great deal of lies and misrepresentations on behalf of evolutionists, and creationists have been accused of it too. That's why I want to look at specifics in detail, because that's how I'll be pursuaded - not by generalities that only reveal an ability to repeat what one has heard other say.
Well, my wife is a Christian biologist, and is also an evolutionist - she got her degree from a Methodist college, where evolution is taught as part of the normal curiculum.
And you yourself are not a Christian? Tell me, in how much detail did she analyse the creationist position before rejecting it?
Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? Duane Gish? Ken Hovind? It's ok if you want to dist