And yet one can easily ignore all the facts and demand that it be taught if someone believes it.
"And that God doesn't exist should be preached in church" - you're making a slight error in the comparison.
I disagree. The point is that creationists want their religion taught in science class. That's like a priest teaching that there is no god.
Creationists generally wish it to be mentioned that a deistic creation is not contrary to observation
That there is no god is not "contrary to observation".
The bottom line is that asking for religion to be taught in science class is ridiculous. And there's no reason to "debate" something which isn't actually debated among scientists in the first place. There's a lot of stuff kids have to learn, so wasting one's time giving credibility to religious dogma is silly.
Yes, he said "climatologists". Which is why I specifically asked about that, because I know very well that teenage and adult nutjobs do exist. I was surprised by his "climatologists" claim. Now, go away, troll.
Oh please. She was honest, and when she was confronted with her creationist views, she seemingly flip-flopped, but it's just for show. Her original comment was in no way invalidated. She just tried to make it sound more reasonable, but she did say "teach both". You can't get much clearer than that.
All you have shown is that she will lie about her position when it becomes uncomfortable.
those climatologists and other proponents of global warming who place death threats upon and question the credentials of those who oppose them
Death threats by scientists? When and where was that?
if science doesn't mind being wrong I'd like to know why evolution isn't allowed to be countered (with whatever theory you want to use as a counter-argument, scientific or not)
Because there are no alternatives or counter-arguments that are not religious, and thus do not belong in research or science class. Just because someone has a crazy idea doesn't mean that it has any merit. Otherwise you must also support teaching Stork Theory in Sex Education or alchemy in chemistry class. And that God doesn't exist should be preached in church.
Additionally belief doesn't have to be blind, it is faith that does
Religious belief/faith, whatever you call it, is blind by definition.
There is dogma in belief, Athiests believe in the absence of a thing, and are convinced of it I argue just as dogmatically and pigheadedly at times as the most ardent fundamentalist billy boy.
Far from it. Even the often demonized Richard Dawkins says that he isn't 100% sure that God doesn't exist. On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute belief that God does not exist, he considers himself as being 6. He can't rule out the existence of God, but he finds it to be extremely improbable.
And again, atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief in God. There are no dogmas in atheism.
I approach religion as a 'to each their own' sort of thing, Athiests grate on me because of their knee-jerk (dogmatic?) consignment to absurdity of the very possibility of the soul
What atheists? Where? When? Every single one of them? What did you do prior to their reaction? Did you tell them how they are dogmatic neocons?
religion becomes a thought-crime
When? Says who? Not anyone I've ever seen.
See Dawkins and his Neocon tendencies for an example of a (very dogmatic) athiest making you all look like Evil Bastards.
There's that Dawkins demonization which always turns out to have no roots what so ever in reality, but is rather a result of lies being spread about him.
What neocon tendencies, specifically? He has specifically stated that he does in no way wish to prevent people from believing whatever they want to believe. And it is a lie, often repeated by religious nuts, that he wants to take away kids from religious parents and things like that.
How is he "dogmatic"? What are his dogmas? Just because he doesn't believe in God, he's "dogmatic"? He has specifically stated that he cannot be 100% sure there is no God, as I mentioned above.
How is he a repeat offender if he was cleared of the charges, and if he had previously credited Kinnock every single time he used the quote(s)? A mistake made once is not a "repeated offense".
How can a candidate running on a base of "change" justify picking a VP who has been in DC for 30+ years?
Maybe it helps to know the system extremely well if you want to change it?
Whether there will be actual change or not is a separate discussion, so let's not get into that. But I don't see anything wrong with hiring expertise on the current system if you want to change it.
Many scientists apparently (really good scientists who are peer-reviewed and everything, not necessarily the creation science/ID folks) tend to more often than not believe in a creator of some sort.
Really? A quick Google search seems to contradict that, but maybe you have some sources to point to?
Not that it really matters. Just because someone who is really smart believes something blindly doesn't mean that he is right. Really smart people can be really stupid in many ways. Just look at how geeks who excel at computers are often less than comfortable interacting with other people. Should you have a geek with social phobia tell you how to interact with other people because he's extremely good at programming?
Why is it dogmatic reactionary A-Theists get so shrill when someone might be open to the possibility of, or find comfort in the practice of a belief
Well first of all, there are no dogmas in atheism. Atheism is not an ideology, but describes the lack of faith in God. Atheism has no rules, no holy books, scriptures, characters, powers, or anything like that. There are no dogmas to accept.
But anyway, I don't know what atheists you are referring to. Atheists can get rather peeved with religious people who try to force their religion down their throats, though.
especially when talking about the existence or nature of supernatural, which is by definition impossible to verify either way with science
Exactly. So you are stuck with blindly accepting something someone told you without any way to verify it. Blind belief in fantastic stories that no one can confirm, test, recreate, etc. Add to that all the contradictions in the ideology as well as the blatant factual errors in the scriptures.
Your are basically saying "you can't verify it either way, so you should just blindly accept it".
Among all the feature requests, 2D Drawing/Vector Graphics is clearly the most desired feature by the community.
So basically, Canvas and SVG? Both supported by Opera, Safari and Firefox (AFAIK). In fact, Opera currently has the best SVG implementation, period. Best Canvas support, I'm not sure, but since Apple invented it I guess that could be Safari.
Yeah, who cares about those towel heads anyway, right? Let's just pull out overnight and leave those rascals to the terrorists. No need to do it in a way which still enables them to defend themselves against terrorists.
Because he wants to do it as safely as possible? Just because he doesn't want to pull the troops out overnight doesn't mean that he supports the war. That's why he wants to move the troops out of there.
Netscape might have introduced many features, but so has Opera. For example, the search field Firefox is making a killing from by sending searches to Google was invented by Opera. Today, browsers take this invention for granted. Firefox has borrowed heavily from Opera. And yes, as someone pointed out, NS was proprietary.
He's probably referring to the feature where you can edit the cached page and then make Opera reload from cache instead of from the online version of the site.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet one can easily ignore all the facts and demand that it be taught if someone believes it.
I disagree. The point is that creationists want their religion taught in science class. That's like a priest teaching that there is no god.
That there is no god is not "contrary to observation".
The bottom line is that asking for religion to be taught in science class is ridiculous. And there's no reason to "debate" something which isn't actually debated among scientists in the first place. There's a lot of stuff kids have to learn, so wasting one's time giving credibility to religious dogma is silly.
Yes, he said "climatologists". Which is why I specifically asked about that, because I know very well that teenage and adult nutjobs do exist. I was surprised by his "climatologists" claim. Now, go away, troll.
All you have shown is that she will lie about her position when it becomes uncomfortable.
Death threats by scientists? When and where was that?
Because there are no alternatives or counter-arguments that are not religious, and thus do not belong in research or science class. Just because someone has a crazy idea doesn't mean that it has any merit. Otherwise you must also support teaching Stork Theory in Sex Education or alchemy in chemistry class. And that God doesn't exist should be preached in church.
I'm still worried. She is extremely ignorant, and is actually open to teaching religious dogma in science class! That is dangerous.
So she flipflopped, and this doesn't change the fact that she is amazingly ignorant, and dangerous to the educational system.
Religious belief/faith, whatever you call it, is blind by definition.
Far from it. Even the often demonized Richard Dawkins says that he isn't 100% sure that God doesn't exist. On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute belief that God does not exist, he considers himself as being 6. He can't rule out the existence of God, but he finds it to be extremely improbable.
And again, atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief in God. There are no dogmas in atheism.
What atheists? Where? When? Every single one of them? What did you do prior to their reaction? Did you tell them how they are dogmatic neocons?
When? Says who? Not anyone I've ever seen.
There's that Dawkins demonization which always turns out to have no roots what so ever in reality, but is rather a result of lies being spread about him.
What neocon tendencies, specifically? He has specifically stated that he does in no way wish to prevent people from believing whatever they want to believe. And it is a lie, often repeated by religious nuts, that he wants to take away kids from religious parents and things like that.
How is he "dogmatic"? What are his dogmas? Just because he doesn't believe in God, he's "dogmatic"? He has specifically stated that he cannot be 100% sure there is no God, as I mentioned above.
How is he a repeat offender if he was cleared of the charges, and if he had previously credited Kinnock every single time he used the quote(s)? A mistake made once is not a "repeated offense".
Maybe it helps to know the system extremely well if you want to change it?
Whether there will be actual change or not is a separate discussion, so let's not get into that. But I don't see anything wrong with hiring expertise on the current system if you want to change it.
Why, hello again, shill.
I actually disagree. Their goal is to make money and controlling entertainment, not justice or "The American Way", whatever that may be.
McCain is not religious?
I would have to disagree.
Science: Verifiable, testable, fact-based, etc.
Religion: Blind belief in empty claims that cannot be tested or verified or even falsified.
Really? A quick Google search seems to contradict that, but maybe you have some sources to point to?
Not that it really matters. Just because someone who is really smart believes something blindly doesn't mean that he is right. Really smart people can be really stupid in many ways. Just look at how geeks who excel at computers are often less than comfortable interacting with other people. Should you have a geek with social phobia tell you how to interact with other people because he's extremely good at programming?
Well first of all, there are no dogmas in atheism. Atheism is not an ideology, but describes the lack of faith in God. Atheism has no rules, no holy books, scriptures, characters, powers, or anything like that. There are no dogmas to accept.
But anyway, I don't know what atheists you are referring to. Atheists can get rather peeved with religious people who try to force their religion down their throats, though.
Exactly. So you are stuck with blindly accepting something someone told you without any way to verify it. Blind belief in fantastic stories that no one can confirm, test, recreate, etc. Add to that all the contradictions in the ideology as well as the blatant factual errors in the scriptures.
Your are basically saying "you can't verify it either way, so you should just blindly accept it".
So basically, Canvas and SVG? Both supported by Opera, Safari and Firefox (AFAIK). In fact, Opera currently has the best SVG implementation, period. Best Canvas support, I'm not sure, but since Apple invented it I guess that could be Safari.
Opera Mobile is a beta after all. It's a lot of work to make it work properly on all phonest. Not everyone is getting the OOM messages.
Weird as a Bush discussion may be (I also found it odd), is it not true that he has run every company he has managed into the ground? :)
Yeah, who cares about those towel heads anyway, right? Let's just pull out overnight and leave those rascals to the terrorists. No need to do it in a way which still enables them to defend themselves against terrorists.
Because he wants to do it as safely as possible? Just because he doesn't want to pull the troops out overnight doesn't mean that he supports the war. That's why he wants to move the troops out of there.
And if they don't like Firefox as it comes, Opera is the better choice...
Netscape might have introduced many features, but so has Opera. For example, the search field Firefox is making a killing from by sending searches to Google was invented by Opera. Today, browsers take this invention for granted. Firefox has borrowed heavily from Opera. And yes, as someone pointed out, NS was proprietary.
So "people" can inspect the code for themselves? Can you?
He's probably referring to the feature where you can edit the cached page and then make Opera reload from cache instead of from the online version of the site.
Opera has site specific settings, which basically means that you can do what NoScipt can.