Many evolutionists operate under the faith that evolution occured and it occurred purely through natural processes.
It is not "faith" if it is supported by MOUNTAINS of evidence, as evolution theory is.
No divine or other intervention has been involved.
This is not what most people who actually understand the science say. What they do say is something along the lines of, "There is no evidence of a higher power."
Any attempt to suggest teaching people otherwise is met with stiff and dogmatic resistance.
Again, there is no evidence of the divine, that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class.
It has not been absolutely proved that only natural processes have brought about our current situation, ergo faith is involved.
Science doesn't absolutely prove anything. Your saying it should belies a basic misunderstanding of what science is.
They may believe that all the evidence points to their conclution, but it is still faith.
Just because you (and others of your ilk) continue to say it over and over doesn't make it so. If, at a murder trial, the murder weapon is found at the suspect's home with the suspect's fingerprints on it, the victim's blood is found in the suspect's car, the suspect was seen entering the victim's home just before the time of death and seen leaving just after, and the suspect was the victim's ex-boyfriend, and the victim's friends said she had just broken up with him, is it "faith" to hand down a guilty verdict? If so, you have a very different definition of "faith" than I do (or any dictionary you care to mention).
Why do you set your alarm clock in the morning? Because you have faith that it will work, that the sun will rise, that your job will still exist, etc. You have no absolute proof of this, but you have pretty good evidence that these things will be so.
This is absolute bollocks and leaves me wondering why I even debate with someone like you. Not only would my alarm clock and my company suddenly have to cease to function overnight, the very solar system would have to cease to function. If you call that "faith", then it is a completely different kind of faith from religious faith, and the two shouldn't be compared as you are attempting to do.
But that is not to say that evidence for a creator is moot.
Please offer us some empirical evidence of a deity.
Some are so entrenched that they cannot see anything but what they want to see...
Now there's something we agree upon.
...but others of us can debate and listen and move the ball forward.
"Intelligent Design" doesn't move anything forward, it is a political movement consisting of nothing but empty speculation based on religion.
I assume this means you believe in obedience to the government and not to conscience?
No, I was merely replying to the previous AC who said:
"If you believe Bush actually said those things, you're dumber than any religious nut."
I was pointing out to the AC that President Bush did indeed say those things.
I believe government exists to serve the people, not to be obeyed. And I don't believe in God, although I do agree with many of the precepts of the Christian Bible, like The Golden Rule, and the basic message of Christ, which consists primarily of love and forgiveness. The rest mostly seems like arbitrary rules: do this, don't do that. Why? Because God said so, that's why.
That which gives one pleasure and does no one else harm is not sin, in my opinion. And that is all government should be concerned with: does the behavior in question impede anyone else's life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness? If not, then it shouldn't be illegal.
Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, goes on to say: "Not long after, Bush called James Robison (a prominent minister) and told him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' " Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention heard Bush say something similar: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK.' "
We are no longer fighting a great enemy, we are asserting a great principle: that the talents and dreams of average people - their warm human hopes and loves - should be rewarded by freedom and protected by peace. We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to God and conscience, not to government.
In Dilip Hiro's book "Secrets and Lies," Hiro quotes the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha'aretz of June 24, 2003, reporting that Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas: "God told me to strike at Al Qaida (sic) and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
One either understands the empirical data and the theories which explain them, or one does not. "Belief", like your belief in God, isn't involved.
I find it odd whenever I come across this line of reasoning from the religious who attempt to find fault with a particular field of science, usually evolution. It sounds like you are saying, "Evolution is invalid because it's just like my religion."
Scientists, being so very sensible and logic - minded, are seeking living things that predate living things.
Mmmm...pretty sure it was the "journalist" who phrased it that way, not the "scientists". If you read the referenced.pdf, it simply says, "...search for signs of life in the earth's crust...".
As I'm sure many of you know, FARK.com has been having database issues for the last few days. With Firefox 1.0.7, it would stop loading a comment thread halfway through, then you would get a pop-up saying "The document contains no data". I could then click OK, the pop-up would go away, and I could at least read what had been retrieved.
Now, if there's an error on the page, it disappears and is replaced by AN ENTIRE PAGE saying "The page didn't load" with a "Try again?" button.
Is there any way to switch back to the previous behavior? That's really farking annoying.
As far as I know, the only one of those which you'll find forbidden in the Bible is homosexuality.
And the only place you'll find homosexuality forbidden is the Old Testament, which also forbids things like eating shellfish. It even uses the same word (abomination) to describe eating shellfish as for a man to "lie with another man as with a woman".
Interesting that the Old Testament is essentially the same as the Torah for the Jews, yet the Jews don't seem to have nearly the problem with "teh gheys" as fundie Xians do.
It should be obvious to any pharmacist that they will be required to provide contraceptives of various varieties. If they don't wish to provide same, they shouldn't take the job. Or, they should start their own "Christian pharmacy" where they can pick and choose as they like.
If my boss suddently started asking me to do things that conflicted with my beliefs (yeah, right, please describe a REAL example), I would refuse. If he fired me, I'd collect unemployment while looking for another job.
Is it just "Tough crap, shut up and do your damn job, you ass-backwards neanderthal!" ?
That is entirely correct, minus the ad hominem.
What's next, vegetarian waitresses who won't serve meat? Radical environmentalists at an AM/PM who refuse to sell gas because it's bad for the environment?
Get real, if you don't want to do the job, don't take it.
Did you notice that the person managed to type that entire post in only about 4 minutes? Gosh, you don't think they had this pre-prepared to post to a related article, do you?
I choose something over nothing. When I die, I'm dead, that's it, game over, thanks for playing. I do, however, enjoy my life, and would like to go on enjoying it for as long as possible. It is most certainly preferable (IMO, of course) to absolute nothingness.
And you're right, with a few exceptions for people like Ghandi and so forth, nothing we do will make an ounce of difference 100 years from now.
Actually, from a low-carb-diet perspective, carbs mean the bad "white" foods: white bread, white rice, refined sugar. On the "not as bad" list for a low carb dieter would be potatoes and pasta.
Spinach only has about 2.5 net grams of carbs per cup, so it would most definitely NOT be on the "bad" list for a low-card dieter. Even during Induction (which, as you may already be aware, is the first, most restrictive phase of the Atkins plan) you can have 3 cups per day of spinach or other green vegetables. After that, you can pretty much eat all the greens you want.
Carrots have some natural sugar in them, so they probably shouldn't be eaten during Induction. But they are stil quite low in carbohydrates and can probably be eaten with impunity after Induction depending on one's particular metabolism.
Low-carb/Atkins really comes down to a whole foods diet, IMO: he says in his book it is better to eat whole cuts of meat instead of processed meat like lunch meat and sausage. He also admonishes you to eat lots of greens, drink lots of water and get plenty of exercise. I fail to see what's wrong with that. The problem is people who eat nothing but bratwurst, eggs and cheese, then wonder why they aren't healthy.
You are correct, of course, the US is indeed a democratic republic. I typed out my post rather hastily and wasn't entirely accurate. I was mostly trying to point out to the original poster that "majority rules" is patently incorrect.
I was actually referring to the original poster who said:
Intelligent Design...actually proposes...that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
I was interested if that poster could provide some evidence of his assertion, but he seems to have disappeared.
And regarding your next point (and at the risk of sounding like an elitist, I really don't mean to be), I have another account with a 4-digit UID, so I've been here almost since the beginning, and I can tell you one thing for sure about CmdrTaco et al: they don't care. They have shown repeatedly over the years that they are going to run this site exactly as they see fit and really couldn't care less about criticism from the users.
Fair enough, it's their site and they can do what they want. But they really come across as megalomaniacs.
Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.
Incorrect. We live in a Republic, which means we have Representatives that make policy. Our form of government was set up specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Are you really unaware of this?
Regarding teaching Creationism/ID, there's nothing to teach except "God/A Mysterious Intelligent Force did it". Whether you are willing to accept it or not, evolution theory is supported by science, therefore it should be taught in science class.
Do you really want to dumb down our country? If we don't teach our children proper scientific methods, we will lose our technological leadership.
I wasn't talking about god, I was merely asking the grandparent to point me to a link describing the evidence of preferred mutations. It would be interesting to read, if it does indeed exist.
...but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
That's very interesting, can you please point me to a link that describes the scientific evidence which brought about the hypothesis that some of the mutations seem to have been encouraged? I would be very interested in reading that.
The best argument against ID I ever heard was basically: Science is the study of the natural universe. ID is the proof that their is a super natural. ID is therefore not the study of the natural universe. So, ID is not science. ID is just logic.
ID isn't "proof" of anything, ID is conjecture, pure and simple. ID isn't testable or falsifiable, therefore it isn't science.
Granted, many people go way overboard in refuting it. These people's rhetoric often degenerates quickly into personal insults. But they are basically correct: ID isn't science because it's not testable or falsifiable.
And I'm curious about your statement that science is a "limited field". The only limit it has is it will only accept that which can be either verified or falsified. It does not accept conjecture or anything that is based on faith rather than verifiable evidence.
You would also have to program it to understand that good players vary their betting based on their position related to the blinds
Not only that, but good players (as I know Hed is aware) will vary their style: aggressive for a while, tight for a while, sometimes different styles between two consecutive hands.
I play online, too, and while I haven't made any money yet (lost about a grand over 15 months, and I play A LOT), there are definitely many times that I put someone on a hand and I'm very much correct. There is a "feel" to the game (No Limit Hold 'Em at least) that I don't think any bot will ever have. At least, not until AI approaches HI. (H=human:) )
Slashdot Mirror
Many evolutionists operate under the faith that evolution occured and it occurred purely through natural processes.
It is not "faith" if it is supported by MOUNTAINS of evidence, as evolution theory is.
No divine or other intervention has been involved.
This is not what most people who actually understand the science say. What they do say is something along the lines of, "There is no evidence of a higher power."
Any attempt to suggest teaching people otherwise is met with stiff and dogmatic resistance.
Again, there is no evidence of the divine, that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class.
It has not been absolutely proved that only natural processes have brought about our current situation, ergo faith is involved.
Science doesn't absolutely prove anything. Your saying it should belies a basic misunderstanding of what science is.
They may believe that all the evidence points to their conclution, but it is still faith.
Just because you (and others of your ilk) continue to say it over and over doesn't make it so. If, at a murder trial, the murder weapon is found at the suspect's home with the suspect's fingerprints on it, the victim's blood is found in the suspect's car, the suspect was seen entering the victim's home just before the time of death and seen leaving just after, and the suspect was the victim's ex-boyfriend, and the victim's friends said she had just broken up with him, is it "faith" to hand down a guilty verdict? If so, you have a very different definition of "faith" than I do (or any dictionary you care to mention).
Why do you set your alarm clock in the morning? Because you have faith that it will work, that the sun will rise, that your job will still exist, etc. You have no absolute proof of this, but you have pretty good evidence that these things will be so.
This is absolute bollocks and leaves me wondering why I even debate with someone like you. Not only would my alarm clock and my company suddenly have to cease to function overnight, the very solar system would have to cease to function. If you call that "faith", then it is a completely different kind of faith from religious faith, and the two shouldn't be compared as you are attempting to do.
But that is not to say that evidence for a creator is moot.
Please offer us some empirical evidence of a deity.
Some are so entrenched that they cannot see anything but what they want to see...
Now there's something we agree upon.
"Intelligent Design" doesn't move anything forward, it is a political movement consisting of nothing but empty speculation based on religion.
I think this finding creates a ripple in pure evolution?
You think this because you're dying to find any flaw in evolution theory, probably because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
Besides, wtf is "pure evolution"?
I assume this means you believe in obedience to the government and not to conscience?
No, I was merely replying to the previous AC who said:
"If you believe Bush actually said those things, you're dumber than any religious nut."
I was pointing out to the AC that President Bush did indeed say those things.
I believe government exists to serve the people, not to be obeyed. And I don't believe in God, although I do agree with many of the precepts of the Christian Bible, like The Golden Rule, and the basic message of Christ, which consists primarily of love and forgiveness. The rest mostly seems like arbitrary rules: do this, don't do that. Why? Because God said so, that's why.
That which gives one pleasure and does no one else harm is not sin, in my opinion. And that is all government should be concerned with: does the behavior in question impede anyone else's life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness? If not, then it shouldn't be illegal.
Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, goes on to say: "Not long after, Bush called James Robison (a prominent minister) and told him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' " Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention heard Bush say something similar: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK.' "
Source
We are no longer fighting a great enemy, we are asserting a great principle: that the talents and dreams of average people - their warm human hopes and loves - should be rewarded by freedom and protected by peace. We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to God and conscience, not to government.
Source
In Dilip Hiro's book "Secrets and Lies," Hiro quotes the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha'aretz of June 24, 2003, reporting that Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas: "God told me to strike at Al Qaida (sic) and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
Source
Of course, perhaps you can provide some sources that state otherwise?
One either understands the empirical data and the theories which explain them, or one does not. "Belief", like your belief in God, isn't involved.
I find it odd whenever I come across this line of reasoning from the religious who attempt to find fault with a particular field of science, usually evolution. It sounds like you are saying, "Evolution is invalid because it's just like my religion."
Mmmm...pretty sure it was the "journalist" who phrased it that way, not the "scientists". If you read the referenced .pdf, it simply says, "...search for signs of life in the earth's crust...".
Nice try, though!
Neo-Darwinist heathens! There is only ONE "forerunner" of life on this planet, and that's GOD!
As I'm sure many of you know, FARK.com has been having database issues for the last few days. With Firefox 1.0.7, it would stop loading a comment thread halfway through, then you would get a pop-up saying "The document contains no data". I could then click OK, the pop-up would go away, and I could at least read what had been retrieved.
Now, if there's an error on the page, it disappears and is replaced by AN ENTIRE PAGE saying "The page didn't load" with a "Try again?" button.
Is there any way to switch back to the previous behavior? That's really farking annoying.
And the only place you'll find homosexuality forbidden is the Old Testament, which also forbids things like eating shellfish. It even uses the same word (abomination) to describe eating shellfish as for a man to "lie with another man as with a woman".
Interesting that the Old Testament is essentially the same as the Torah for the Jews, yet the Jews don't seem to have nearly the problem with "teh gheys" as fundie Xians do.
It should be obvious to any pharmacist that they will be required to provide contraceptives of various varieties. If they don't wish to provide same, they shouldn't take the job. Or, they should start their own "Christian pharmacy" where they can pick and choose as they like.
If my boss suddently started asking me to do things that conflicted with my beliefs (yeah, right, please describe a REAL example), I would refuse. If he fired me, I'd collect unemployment while looking for another job.
Is it just "Tough crap, shut up and do your damn job, you ass-backwards neanderthal!" ?
That is entirely correct, minus the ad hominem.
What's next, vegetarian waitresses who won't serve meat? Radical environmentalists at an AM/PM who refuse to sell gas because it's bad for the environment?
Get real, if you don't want to do the job, don't take it.
To anyone complaining about the parent post, please check out all his other posts. I think I see a pattern developing...
Did you notice that the person managed to type that entire post in only about 4 minutes? Gosh, you don't think they had this pre-prepared to post to a related article, do you?
Irritating, indeed...
Yes, because I just LOVE taking 12V battery packs along with me when I go for a jog or to the gym.
I choose something over nothing. When I die, I'm dead, that's it, game over, thanks for playing. I do, however, enjoy my life, and would like to go on enjoying it for as long as possible. It is most certainly preferable (IMO, of course) to absolute nothingness.
And you're right, with a few exceptions for people like Ghandi and so forth, nothing we do will make an ounce of difference 100 years from now.
Carbohydrates means "carrots" and "spinich."
Actually, from a low-carb-diet perspective, carbs mean the bad "white" foods: white bread, white rice, refined sugar. On the "not as bad" list for a low carb dieter would be potatoes and pasta.
Spinach only has about 2.5 net grams of carbs per cup, so it would most definitely NOT be on the "bad" list for a low-card dieter. Even during Induction (which, as you may already be aware, is the first, most restrictive phase of the Atkins plan) you can have 3 cups per day of spinach or other green vegetables. After that, you can pretty much eat all the greens you want.
Carrots have some natural sugar in them, so they probably shouldn't be eaten during Induction. But they are stil quite low in carbohydrates and can probably be eaten with impunity after Induction depending on one's particular metabolism.
Low-carb/Atkins really comes down to a whole foods diet, IMO: he says in his book it is better to eat whole cuts of meat instead of processed meat like lunch meat and sausage. He also admonishes you to eat lots of greens, drink lots of water and get plenty of exercise. I fail to see what's wrong with that. The problem is people who eat nothing but bratwurst, eggs and cheese, then wonder why they aren't healthy.
You are correct, of course, the US is indeed a democratic republic. I typed out my post rather hastily and wasn't entirely accurate. I was mostly trying to point out to the original poster that "majority rules" is patently incorrect.
:)
Thanks for the clarification.
I was actually referring to the original poster who said:
Intelligent Design...actually proposes...that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
I was interested if that poster could provide some evidence of his assertion, but he seems to have disappeared.
And regarding your next point (and at the risk of sounding like an elitist, I really don't mean to be), I have another account with a 4-digit UID, so I've been here almost since the beginning, and I can tell you one thing for sure about CmdrTaco et al: they don't care. They have shown repeatedly over the years that they are going to run this site exactly as they see fit and really couldn't care less about criticism from the users.
Fair enough, it's their site and they can do what they want. But they really come across as megalomaniacs.
...queers wanting to get legally married.
Ahh, now I see where you stand. That explains a great deal.
Incorrect. We live in a Constitutional Republic...
:)
Thank you for the clarification, I sit corrected.
Incorrect. We live in a Republic, which means we have Representatives that make policy. Our form of government was set up specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Are you really unaware of this?
Regarding teaching Creationism/ID, there's nothing to teach except "God/A Mysterious Intelligent Force did it". Whether you are willing to accept it or not, evolution theory is supported by science, therefore it should be taught in science class.
Do you really want to dumb down our country? If we don't teach our children proper scientific methods, we will lose our technological leadership.
Do you really want to weaken America?
I wasn't talking about god, I was merely asking the grandparent to point me to a link describing the evidence of preferred mutations. It would be interesting to read, if it does indeed exist.
...but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
That's very interesting, can you please point me to a link that describes the scientific evidence which brought about the hypothesis that some of the mutations seem to have been encouraged? I would be very interested in reading that.
The best argument against ID I ever heard was basically: Science is the study of the natural universe. ID is the proof that their is a super natural. ID is therefore not the study of the natural universe. So, ID is not science. ID is just logic.
ID isn't "proof" of anything, ID is conjecture, pure and simple. ID isn't testable or falsifiable, therefore it isn't science.
Granted, many people go way overboard in refuting it. These people's rhetoric often degenerates quickly into personal insults. But they are basically correct: ID isn't science because it's not testable or falsifiable.
And I'm curious about your statement that science is a "limited field". The only limit it has is it will only accept that which can be either verified or falsified. It does not accept conjecture or anything that is based on faith rather than verifiable evidence.
Is that what you meant?
You would also have to program it to understand that good players vary their betting based on their position related to the blinds
:) )
Not only that, but good players (as I know Hed is aware) will vary their style: aggressive for a while, tight for a while, sometimes different styles between two consecutive hands.
I play online, too, and while I haven't made any money yet (lost about a grand over 15 months, and I play A LOT), there are definitely many times that I put someone on a hand and I'm very much correct. There is a "feel" to the game (No Limit Hold 'Em at least) that I don't think any bot will ever have. At least, not until AI approaches HI. (H=human
Thanks so much...