Wow. Is that really the same Noam Chomsky? I had completely bifurcated the Noam Chomsky of formal grammar theory and Noam Chomsky the liberal activist. I never before put those two together. I must be an idiot.
No more clue than how many millions died under Johnson, the second Democrat in a row to preside over use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. Nixon canceled the "rainbow herbicide" program 2 years after he took office.
Don't try to pin all the sins of Democrats on Republicans. It's hypocritical. Just ante up and admit that both political parties have got just as much blood on their hands.
And yes, even though JFK and LBJ are responsible for starting the Vietnam war, their leadership doesn't cover the most deadly part of it, which belongs squarely to Nixon and Kissinger.
That a fact?
US Servicemen killed Vietnam: Johnson - 35,751 Nixon - 22,041 (information obtained by five seconds of Googling)
If you're talking about Vietnamese casualties, then you've got secret inside sources in the Vietnamese government.
No. This is me avoiding the same old argument about contradictions in the bible. You don't even understand the subject, and you I don't think you really care to. And yeah, the vast majority of church laity supports young-earth creationism. The majority of church laity doesn't read, and that's a problem in and of itself. YEC's certainly don't represent the forefront of theological thought in the church (not in mine, or any I know of).
Six days? What's a day when the earth and sun don't even exist yet? A core component to Christian theology is that God is boundless; he is therefore not temporal. What is a day to a non-temporal entity? The bible uses terminology that a Jew of thousands of years ago can understand readily without a course in philosophy.
This discussion is fruitless because you think you know what you don't. How am I supposed to argue with that?
At the very least, you could have faked having a grasp of the bible and its "contradictions" with a Google search.
That's fantastic for you. It still doesn't correct the fact that you claimed your opponent was ignorant and untruthful, and in the process showed that you were in fact the one ignorant of what was being discussed.
You lost me. I got no clue what you're talking about.
I understand your concern. To be sure, let me say that I while I do not have perfect faith in science's ability to answer all of our questions, I still believe (even as a Christian) we should strive to expand our academic knowledge through science. To that end, this article does not alarm me in the least. If scientific fact is not dogmatic and is evolutionary in nature, then I have nothing to fear from it.
I'm far more comfortable with the source material a young-earth creationist uses (we read the same scriptures everyday), and therefore am far less reluctant to debate them than an evolutionist, as we have mutually passing knowledges of each other's sources of information.
I wasn't talking about scientists. I'm not going to argue with a scientist (or any other expert in their chosen field, for that matter). I'm talking about lay-people who believe they have the objective truth because a scientist has reasonably predicted it.
You know what that sounds like to me? Imagine a creationist calling an evolutionist "ignorant" and blathering on about "irreducible complexity" and bombardier beetles. You have a similar grasp of biblical theology. There is no pwnage here for you, I promise.
there is only "best approximation" based on the evidence thus far obtained. Science and the scientific method just happen to provide the best framework for making reasonable judgments about the real world, based on theories, the only measure of the success of which, is their PREDICTIVE CAPACITY.
This is an insightful statement, and I agree with it. I do not believe many of your peers on the evolutionary side of the argument would, however.
And the discovered error changes your mind. I didn't want to get into a semantic snit. The guy wrote something that he believed in '55 but doesn't believe today. The beliefs of established science evolve. And they are beliefs.
Fact's don't change with time. This man's beliefs about the survivability of primordial compounds did.
Or we'll just say that nothing is written in stone, and the papers you publish today may be retracted tomorrow when you change your minds. I don't have a stake in the original paper anyhow (never heard of it), so I don't care either way.
This is more a blow (in the long term) to the idea that science yields objective truth, IMO.
It's a double-standard. Evolutionists object (rightly) when creationists use tenuous logic and pseudo-science to poke holes in their science, but have no objection to making stuff out of thin air (or, in this case, grabbing some random Charismatic's pet "theory" on how old the earth is) to poke holes in Christian theology.
It is long past the time for us to pretend to have expertise in each other's fields of interest. I don't know jack about evolutionary theory, and the GP doesn't know jack about the Bible. I also don't think either of us cares enough to fix that.
The #1 problem with the Christian church in America is a profound misplacement of priorities. They eschew D&D, a social, interactive, and intellectually stimulating game in favor of mindless video games and television, both of which contribute to the spiritual decay of children (IMHO, IMXP, CSFC, YMMV).
If I have my druthers (and procreate), my kids won't have a television or X-Box, but they [i]will[/i] have their own Player's Handbook.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm posting this with Firefox 3.0.1.... from the future.
We did. Twice. They burned our capitol, and we dumped their tea in a river. The heavy cost has made us unwilling to engage in any further hostilities.
What has any of that got to do with the internet?
Dennis would like point to Ron as evidence that TEH UFO'S ARE REAL!!!11!!1!one!!
*ducks*
*runs*
Wow. Is that really the same Noam Chomsky? I had completely bifurcated the Noam Chomsky of formal grammar theory and Noam Chomsky the liberal activist. I never before put those two together. I must be an idiot.
No more clue than how many millions died under Johnson, the second Democrat in a row to preside over use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. Nixon canceled the "rainbow herbicide" program 2 years after he took office.
Don't try to pin all the sins of Democrats on Republicans. It's hypocritical. Just ante up and admit that both political parties have got just as much blood on their hands.
That a fact?
US Servicemen killed Vietnam:
Johnson - 35,751
Nixon - 22,041
(information obtained by five seconds of Googling)
If you're talking about Vietnamese casualties, then you've got secret inside sources in the Vietnamese government.
No. This is me avoiding the same old argument about contradictions in the bible. You don't even understand the subject, and you I don't think you really care to. And yeah, the vast majority of church laity supports young-earth creationism. The majority of church laity doesn't read, and that's a problem in and of itself. YEC's certainly don't represent the forefront of theological thought in the church (not in mine, or any I know of).
Six days? What's a day when the earth and sun don't even exist yet? A core component to Christian theology is that God is boundless; he is therefore not temporal. What is a day to a non-temporal entity? The bible uses terminology that a Jew of thousands of years ago can understand readily without a course in philosophy.
This discussion is fruitless because you think you know what you don't. How am I supposed to argue with that?
At the very least, you could have faked having a grasp of the bible and its "contradictions" with a Google search.
Every lay-person's an expert, I guess.
I understand your concern. To be sure, let me say that I while I do not have perfect faith in science's ability to answer all of our questions, I still believe (even as a Christian) we should strive to expand our academic knowledge through science. To that end, this article does not alarm me in the least. If scientific fact is not dogmatic and is evolutionary in nature, then I have nothing to fear from it.
I'm far more comfortable with the source material a young-earth creationist uses (we read the same scriptures everyday), and therefore am far less reluctant to debate them than an evolutionist, as we have mutually passing knowledges of each other's sources of information.
Agreed, it would be an ugly discussion, indeed. I think I'd rather "rapture" myself out of it with a plastic bag and duct tape. (Xo)
I was not trying to imply he had a brain-fart and decided something on a whimsy. I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully.
On all other points, you are totally correct.
I wasn't talking about scientists. I'm not going to argue with a scientist (or any other expert in their chosen field, for that matter). I'm talking about lay-people who believe they have the objective truth because a scientist has reasonably predicted it.
You know what that sounds like to me? Imagine a creationist calling an evolutionist "ignorant" and blathering on about "irreducible complexity" and bombardier beetles. You have a similar grasp of biblical theology. There is no pwnage here for you, I promise.
Which one has the coolest pictures?
And the discovered error changes your mind. I didn't want to get into a semantic snit. The guy wrote something that he believed in '55 but doesn't believe today. The beliefs of established science evolve. And they are beliefs.
Fact's don't change with time. This man's beliefs about the survivability of primordial compounds did.
Or we'll just say that nothing is written in stone, and the papers you publish today may be retracted tomorrow when you change your minds. I don't have a stake in the original paper anyhow (never heard of it), so I don't care either way.
This is more a blow (in the long term) to the idea that science yields objective truth, IMO.
It's a double-standard. Evolutionists object (rightly) when creationists use tenuous logic and pseudo-science to poke holes in their science, but have no objection to making stuff out of thin air (or, in this case, grabbing some random Charismatic's pet "theory" on how old the earth is) to poke holes in Christian theology.
It is long past the time for us to pretend to have expertise in each other's fields of interest. I don't know jack about evolutionary theory, and the GP doesn't know jack about the Bible. I also don't think either of us cares enough to fix that.
If they have access to your video card, they can peek behind the pixels to see what's under the "*******". I think. Or something.
The #1 problem with the Christian church in America is a profound misplacement of priorities. They eschew D&D, a social, interactive, and intellectually stimulating game in favor of mindless video games and television, both of which contribute to the spiritual decay of children (IMHO, IMXP, CSFC, YMMV).
If I have my druthers (and procreate), my kids won't have a television or X-Box, but they [i]will[/i] have their own Player's Handbook.
Although I prefer D&D to Halo, myself.