Somehow I have trouble understanding how did you get from "evolution is wrong" to "creationism is right". If you really "studied" from scientific point of view, you would know that disproving evolution (whatever that means) gets you exactly 0 (zero) evidence in favor of creationism.
Now, what proof do you have of the statement that at some point in time there existed a supreme being, that created some parts of the universe?
Rights that have their basis just in mortal reason can always be bent to whatever a person or persons feel is appropriate.
Except that this is exactly what was happening all the time throughout the history and also happening now.
It also works both ways: anybody can claim that the right X is not god given and you can go fuck yourself. Which also was happening all the time throughout the history and happening now. For example, see religious arguments against gay marriage.
But more importantly, while you are right that Christianity in the general sense is not incompatible with these two scientific theories,...
Actually, there is one incompatibility problem, which I haven't heard anyone of the religious folks address: at least in Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism humans are different from animals, because they have souls. It means that somewhere in the course of evolution there was a leap that made human-like monkeys different from "real humans" that have souls. There is no evidence that suggests this leap happened.
It is interesting though, that in some religious countries (Russia comes to mind) there is no clash between evolution and science anywhere in public discussions and the head of the church never had to comment on the issue. People just go science to satisfy their "rational brain" and to church to satisfy their "irrational brain" and never really think about one activity in terms of the other.
I feel sorry for them because this particular agreement should probably be void nowadays. I mean, IE is no longer dominant browser and MS no longer has anything close to monopoly there. The awareness of other browsers like Firefox and Chrome is very high, so I honestly don't see any problem with them doing it now.
How does a baseless statement like this get upvoted? I use Keynote on iPad on a daily basis to create presentations with text, graphics and even animations.
Sounds like an example that proves GP's point to me.
Touch is great for accessing and consuming content.
Hmm, the gestures I have to make to browse anything on a tablet are way larger than gestures I have to do with my mouse on like 10x larger screen. Then, every time you do "click" on anything with your hand, it is now blocking your view, so you have to move it away, so you can see the result, before navigating further.
Navigating GMail, using mouse or like a gazillion different key bindings they have is so much easier than on any touch device.
Personally, I think the touch is just a new hype. It has its place and I'm sure some aspects of it will stick, but there are still quite a lot of places where you don't want to look at the screen and just have tactile feedback. Like in your car for example.
One of the reasons it is promoted so much is because it is cheaper for companies to make touch screen and then experiment with software then to design a decent controller.
I would take a mass and drop it in a vacuum and watch it not fall... and rule out any other forces. The theory of gravity predicts that it would fall towards the earth ( assuming that we are in fact conducting such experiment on earth). If it didn't fall then our current theory of gravity is wrong.
How do you deal with all the cases we see around, where it does work?
The question wasn't what test WILL , but what test WOULD.... If you can't think of a test that would prove your theory wrong then it's not provable...
Einstein proved that newtons laws were wrong... or incorrect and limited if you want to be PC about it...
As I said, that counts more like "expanded". He did not *disprove* them.
Science works by the simple principle that only a single counter example is enough to disprove a theory...
While the word itself may be confusing, in science the *theory* is actually something that was proven. What you are probably thinking about is *hypothesis*.
See, this is not how science works. You can't disprove something that was already proven by overwhelming evidence and research. You can definitely find the *limits* of the theory. Take for example the classical Galilean Relativity principle and Einstein's one. Do you ever hear anyone saying that Einstein have disproved the Galilean principle? No, to the contrary, he found its limits and *expanded* it.
You can test different aspects of the theory, which may help refine it, but you can't disprove it as a whole, because it is now found to be working for the majority of cases
Evolutionary theory is way more than just origin story. It is a very powerful theory because it is universal. Even in computer science we have evolutionary algorithms. I'm not a biologist, but IIRC the whole genetics is pretty much inspired by the theory of evolution.
OK, now I understand what you were talking about in the first place.
If rights come from a social contract, then what happens when the social contract changes? If you believe that your rights come from God, you will fight for those rights because they are yours. If you believe that your rights come from a social contract, then you will submit to the contract when it changes.
The problem with this reasoning is that it can work both ways. What if your right is not God-given, but you still fill like you are entitled to it? Do you still submit because there is some authority? I don't see I difference where this authority comes from: God or another man.
Another problem is that this means that this set of rights supposedly never changes. However, if you ask any cleric of today and any cleric 1000 years ago about slavery, something tells me that you are going to get different answers. Even if you are talking about the same religion, like catholicism is definitely more than 1k years old.
It may be easy when we are talking about the rights that are very well accepted in civilized world: freedom of speech, women equality and so on. If we get to a more gray area however... things may get different. Is the "right to bear arms" a God given right or not?
Even more provoking: gay rights. Do they have a God given right to marry and adopt kids? I'm pretty sure that in 100 years, this right of theirs will be as God given as your freedom of speech today. Times change. Religions change with them.
It's about rebellion. To put it cleverly: Free people have rights from God. Slaves have prvileges doled out by some form of social contract.
Now, to finally answer the original question. I believe that freedoms and rights are just ideas. As any idea, they come from *within* a person. If the idea is powerful and gives a man (or woman) enough inspiration to fight and convince others to fight (not necessarily literally), the idea becomes accepted, common and thus, social contract changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Vote for "The debt is too damn high" party.
Out of curiosity: what did they recall?
Just trying to estimate how much would I care about a recall of that.
Looking forward to clicking on "I don't agree" on a whole bunch of crappy sites I occasionally use.
You pretty much ruined the joke with your second sentence.
Dunno about you but I get surprised and excited every time I see some technology performing as designed.
Especially, if I was the one who designed it.
Wow, name calling and broken links.
Wow! Broken link as evidence for creationism! Are you that desperate? :)
Somehow I have trouble understanding how did you get from "evolution is wrong" to "creationism is right". If you really "studied" from scientific point of view, you would know that disproving evolution (whatever that means) gets you exactly 0 (zero) evidence in favor of creationism.
Now, what proof do you have of the statement that at some point in time there existed a supreme being, that created some parts of the universe?
If Romney wins, please come back here for a $1000 bet that this crap won't change when he's in office.
Bush wasn't just corrupt, he was stupid as hell.
The law is still fucked up, nothing to see here
'ebook reading device might be considered a tablet, as might a handheld video game device.'"
And if some corporation pays enough, it also might be considered a tractor.
Rights that have their basis just in mortal reason can always be bent to whatever a person or persons feel is appropriate.
Except that this is exactly what was happening all the time throughout the history and also happening now.
It also works both ways: anybody can claim that the right X is not god given and you can go fuck yourself. Which also was happening all the time throughout the history and happening now. For example, see religious arguments against gay marriage.
Is a man who wants to stamp out homosexuality a bigot? I would say he is.
Stamp out by calling them homosexuals or gays? How is that bigotry?
And don't dare to call those people "delusional", because that would be bigotry!
But more importantly, while you are right that Christianity in the general sense is not incompatible with these two scientific theories, ...
Actually, there is one incompatibility problem, which I haven't heard anyone of the religious folks address: at least in Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism humans are different from animals, because they have souls. It means that somewhere in the course of evolution there was a leap that made human-like monkeys different from "real humans" that have souls. There is no evidence that suggests this leap happened.
It is interesting though, that in some religious countries (Russia comes to mind) there is no clash between evolution and science anywhere in public discussions and the head of the church never had to comment on the issue. People just go science to satisfy their "rational brain" and to church to satisfy their "irrational brain" and never really think about one activity in terms of the other.
I feel sorry for them because this particular agreement should probably be void nowadays. I mean, IE is no longer dominant browser and MS no longer has anything close to monopoly there. The awareness of other browsers like Firefox and Chrome is very high, so I honestly don't see any problem with them doing it now.
How does a baseless statement like this get upvoted? I use Keynote on iPad on a daily basis to create presentations with text, graphics and even animations.
Sounds like an example that proves GP's point to me.
Touch is great for accessing and consuming content.
Hmm, the gestures I have to make to browse anything on a tablet are way larger than gestures I have to do with my mouse on like 10x larger screen. Then, every time you do "click" on anything with your hand, it is now blocking your view, so you have to move it away, so you can see the result, before navigating further.
Navigating GMail, using mouse or like a gazillion different key bindings they have is so much easier than on any touch device.
Personally, I think the touch is just a new hype. It has its place and I'm sure some aspects of it will stick, but there are still quite a lot of places where you don't want to look at the screen and just have tactile feedback. Like in your car for example.
One of the reasons it is promoted so much is because it is cheaper for companies to make touch screen and then experiment with software then to design a decent controller.
This is one of those cases where opening the source does not really mean anything.
I would take a mass and drop it in a vacuum and watch it not fall ... and rule out any other forces. The theory of gravity predicts that it would fall towards the earth ( assuming that we are in fact conducting such experiment on earth). If it didn't fall then our current theory of gravity is wrong.
How do you deal with all the cases we see around, where it does work?
The question wasn't what test WILL , but what test WOULD .... If you can't think of a test that would prove your theory wrong then it's not provable...
Einstein proved that newtons laws were wrong... or incorrect and limited if you want to be PC about it...
As I said, that counts more like "expanded". He did not *disprove* them.
Science works by the simple principle that only a single counter example is enough to disprove a theory...
While the word itself may be confusing, in science the *theory* is actually something that was proven. What you are probably thinking about is *hypothesis*.
It seems to me that if evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and creationism were to all disappear, science would be just fine.
This is basically what I was replying to.
I did not mean to dispute the validity of your question, sorry if it sounded like I did.
How do you disprove gravity?
See, this is not how science works. You can't disprove something that was already proven by overwhelming evidence and research. You can definitely find the *limits* of the theory. Take for example the classical Galilean Relativity principle and Einstein's one. Do you ever hear anyone saying that Einstein have disproved the Galilean principle? No, to the contrary, he found its limits and *expanded* it.
You can test different aspects of the theory, which may help refine it, but you can't disprove it as a whole, because it is now found to be working for the majority of cases
Evolutionary theory is way more than just origin story. It is a very powerful theory because it is universal. Even in computer science we have evolutionary algorithms. I'm not a biologist, but IIRC the whole genetics is pretty much inspired by the theory of evolution.
From 'shit-i've-heard-on-tv-dept'. I remember in Daily Show John was quoting some sources that claimed it would be like 20% more expensive.
Sorry, not gonna google for that :)
Sounds interesting. I certainly appreciate the discussion too.
OK, now I understand what you were talking about in the first place.
If rights come from a social contract, then what happens when the social contract changes? If you believe that your rights come from God, you will fight for those rights because they are yours. If you believe that your rights come from a social contract, then you will submit to the contract when it changes.
The problem with this reasoning is that it can work both ways. What if your right is not God-given, but you still fill like you are entitled to it? Do you still submit because there is some authority? I don't see I difference where this authority comes from: God or another man.
Another problem is that this means that this set of rights supposedly never changes. However, if you ask any cleric of today and any cleric 1000 years ago about slavery, something tells me that you are going to get different answers. Even if you are talking about the same religion, like catholicism is definitely more than 1k years old.
It may be easy when we are talking about the rights that are very well accepted in civilized world: freedom of speech, women equality and so on. If we get to a more gray area however... things may get different. Is the "right to bear arms" a God given right or not?
Even more provoking: gay rights. Do they have a God given right to marry and adopt kids? I'm pretty sure that in 100 years, this right of theirs will be as God given as your freedom of speech today. Times change. Religions change with them.
It's about rebellion. To put it cleverly: Free people have rights from God. Slaves have prvileges doled out by some form of social contract.
Now, to finally answer the original question. I believe that freedoms and rights are just ideas. As any idea, they come from *within* a person. If the idea is powerful and gives a man (or woman) enough inspiration to fight and convince others to fight (not necessarily literally), the idea becomes accepted, common and thus, social contract changes.