A lot of people mentioned how they started off learning to program on old 8-bit machines. Why not just go to eBay and grab one of those? I have several Ti 99-4A computers, a Commodore and a couple of Tandys, with the odd Timex thrown in. My kids picked up the instruction manuals and started hacking. They are 7 and 8, by the way. Once I showed them sprites on the TI, they were off and running.
That's too bad. I don't play the game, but I did pick up the trade paperback of the comic series and the first two novels. I rather enjoyed them, despite a serious lack of editing on the second novel. Any news on whether the last book is still coming out, at least?
It's one thing to say "yes, it might have been like that" and quite another saying "it entirely was like that and you're a moron if you don't believe it".
And when, pray tell, have I ever said that we need to do that? The whole freaking point of this conversation is that you do not need to know every piece of data about a historical event or series of events in order to understand it in general. We don't need an example of every transitional form a branch of life went through in order to piece together the general family history, just like we don't need to know what Julius Caesar did on his 12th birthday to have a good idea of the course of his life. So, at least you recognize that your standard for proof is irrational with regards to human history. Now, apply that to evolution.
And your contention that I(or anyone else) claim to have a complete and absolute knowledge of evolution is silly. I never claimed that. I know of no evolutionary biologist who ever claimed that. Let's review what I said: If the genes, morphology, geological location, age, etc., all point to something, denying it because every minute detail of the process can not be explicitly demonstrated is ridiculous.
Feel free to keep propping up strawmen if it works for you, though.
To say it with well defined binary logic: 1 = fact, 0 = theory. 1 = have data, 0 = no data.
Well, this is a pretty funny statement. I suggest you go read this. It is a link to the scientific method, and I think you should read it because you fundamentally confuse a hypothesis with a theory.
I think journalists are also to blame for scientific zeal, like the Discovery channel that unabashedly proclaims things like "when the dinosaurs were destroyed by the giant meteorite".
Well, they may be prone to hyperbole and hysteria, but at least they expose people to some actual science. It's much better than the hacks who spend their time updating us on what celebrities are doing.
Don't you realize how much nonsense that is?
No, I do not, actually.
Not only is that claiming another theory as being the truth, but all we have to "prove" that is a layer of ash found in about the same depth at various select places of the world and a couple of meteorite craters. But the reality might have looked entirely different.
How cute. You reduce the observations of the K-T boundary to a "layer of ash." You should really read up on these, and check your arguments for them.
That whole notion is completely and utterly ridiculous. Well, to me at least.
A personal problem that many are afflicted with.
Go on, and believe the world is a disk, I don't care.
Of course! Because I refuse to bury my head in the sand with regards to evolution I must also believe in a flat earth! Kudos on that devastating attack! I am swooning.
In ten years or so, they'll have another grand theory of evolution, supported by corroborating evidence that'll say the exact opposite of what they're saying today.
And what crystal ball did you pull this prophesy from?
Let me break it down for you. Science works because we constantly subject ideas to criticism and attack. When we acquire more information, we compare it against what we think we know. If it fits, it confirms our understanding. If it doesn't, we need to adjust our ideas.
If we find evidence(we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that the evidence is airtight) that refutes evolution, then, guess what? We'll adjust our ideas. It's what rational people do. Science is not religion. We don't need to cling to an idea like "Jesus healed a man of blindness with spit and mud" forever. We follow the evidence, and that willingn
Well, then read up a little about the Roman Catholic Church and Freemasonry.
I am an ex-Catholic, and very well versed in the history of that church, and with that of Christianity in general. I find little enough to respect in either the Catholics or the Freemasons. Both have done some good and much ill in their time, and both still cling to superstitions.
Western science would have never evolved without the freemasons, because the Roman Catholic Church was oppressing all research into non-religious matters. Scientists were routinely executed as heretics in those days.
I call bullshit. The Catholic church also funded science. The Freemasons had their part to play in the rise of rationalism, but to claim that western science depends on them is as silly as claiming that the Catholic church was the one thing that led us out of the Dark Ages.
That various evolutional theories existed before Charles Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" is great, but that doesn't change the impact of Darwin's theory on Western science.
Darwin presented an idea of the mechanism of evolution, namely natural selection. The idea of evolution, including even crude ideas of natural selection, were present for centuries, stretching back to the Greeks. Darwin did have a huge impact, but to imagine that it was new and formulated as an attack on the Catholics is the fantasy here. Lest we forget your words: in the time when it appeared, there was absolutely no way of telling, but it was used as one of the weapons to fight the Catholic Church. And that's why it's still a mainstay.
The Theory of Evolution is not verifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be called a Theory. Don't confuse theories with facts.
The theory of the American Revolution is not verifiable. I mean, we have copious amounts of data pointing to it, but since it is a historical event, it must always be treated as conjecture, regardless of the explanatory power of the theory or the strength of evidence. Right?
Obviously, only someone afflicted with either profound ignorance or who has some sort of ideological statement to protect is going to deny the American Revolution just because we cannot now go back and verify it personally. The very fact that immense amounts of data point to it provides the only verification we can get of ANY historical event that we didn't personally witness. This is as true for human history as it is for natural history.
And yet, your article talks about Theories, and more Theories, and not once about facts.
I'm beginning to suspect that you have no clue what the term "theory" means. We also have a theory of gravity(several, to be precise). Are you going to jump out of a high rise window based on the fact that we only have theories?
Look, if you find a fossil that suggests a transition from one perceived evolutionary stage to another, then you're making an assumption about what happened inbetween those evolutionary stages.
Welcome to the science of history. If the genes, morphology, geological location, age, etc., all point to something, denying it because every minute detail of the process can not be explicitly demonstrated is ridiculous. You would have to reject most of human history to take up such an extremist position. I would bet that you do not do so.
You see, I'm a professional software developer. I believe only in logic and verifiable truth.
So am I, and quite successful, I might add.
And the Theory of Evolution just don't have enough meat for me. It's like finding individual bytes of a computer program and trying to reproduce a full, working program. Even if you find so many bytes, filling all the gaps is nothing but guesswork.
What a bad analogy. If I find sufficient data, I can extrapolate the rest(I know this, because I have done it before). Especially if my goal is to try and understand the program, and not to try and recrea
That doesn't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a fantasy tale of sorts... in the time when it appeared, there was absolutely no way of telling, but it was used as one of the weapons to fight the Catholic Church.
Well, given that the roots of evolutionary thought appear before Christianity existed, I would have to say that that is nonsense. Aside from that, while I am not aware that the Catholic church has formally embraced evolution, it certainly has made it clear that evolution is largely acceptable to it's followers. It is largely the Protestant churches(especially those which embraced biblical literalism) that are threatened by evolution.
Of course everybody can come up with "corroborating evidence", but that doesn't change the fact that it's just a theory.
Actually, they can't. That is why "intelligent design" has no traction. There is not a speck of evidence for it.
We have absolutely no way of telling whether we've been created by whatever entity, or whether we've sprung into existence out of random, or out of evolution.
Yes, I suppose if we ignored everything we've learned about natural history, we could imagine all sorts of origins for ourselves. If we actually limit ourselves to verifiable fact, however, then evolution is apparent.
The missing links in anthropology are what makes proving evolution difficult. The so-called "evidence" there is razor-thin.
I suggest you study transitional fossils a little bit. It might clear up some of your misconceptions.
Insufficient proof? We have corroborating evidence from every field of science which touches on the question of evolution. The only people I have ever seen denying it had a religious precept to protect, bar none. Some cloak their ignorance in pseudo-science and hysteric hyperbole, but it does not make it a rational rebuttal. Science, by it's nature, is critical thought in action. It's the opposite of self-imposed ignorance, which is the phenomenon I was addressing.
And that sort of silly thinking is exactly why we have to worry about people's religion and need to push critical thinking. Because people who refuse to understand basic biological fact are trying to push their self-imposed ignorance upon everyone else.
Welcome to the USA, where the right and left wing agree on only one thing: the need to strip the American public of freedom and privacy. The only thing that differs is what excuse they use.
I don't watch videos of people getting murdered (rotten.com type of stuff). I have a reasonable expectation not to see a guy get his head sawed off while I'm flipping past CNN.
If CNN takes to airing things you don't like, by all means, avoid their products.
There must be a line drawn. If I accidentally see "Two girls, one cup" while scanning through basic cable, I'm gonna be pissed. YOU are gonna have to get in MY living room and clean the puke from MY CARPET!
Well, I hadn't actually known about that video, or the attendant hoopla, until your post. I guess that shows how prurient my tastes run. But, again, who cares? If you don't want the chance to see it, block whatever channels might contain it. Stick to TBN if you are worried you might be offended. Someone showed me tub girl one time, and I am not trying to censor the internet. I just avoid the spots I might not like. Freedom, it just works.
First, I'd love to know why you consider the things that make a show TV MA as opposed to TV LSV (or lower) entertainment?
Who said I did?
Second, I'm not forcing my morals on you. You aren't being forced to change. You may still subscribe to the channels that used to be the only source of content like what is now being aired on regular cable and the original networks. What value-add is there for obscenities to be aired? Why do I need to hear a detective on Law and Order call a suspect a "dick" instead of an "idiot" or even an "asshole"? That's high school talk; that isn't adult. Using that show as an example, are you trying to relive your high school years? Does it give you a rush to hear "dick" instead? Or maybe hearing it makes you feel like more of a man?
I actually do not care for shows like Law & Order, and my television habits would probably be considered tame by most standards. I am not, however, hung up on cuss words. I live in the real world, where people can and do use obscenities in everyday life. I do not consider it a problem, and I would think that the person who gets worked up over it is likely the person with the problem.
Even if you don't watch Law and Order there are other shows with similar issues and my questions still apply and can be generalized down to 1 question: why is it needed for entertainment? Obviously if you prefer that level of entertainment then the logical implication is that you admit your standards for entertainment and your morals are below that of the status quo set by society.
My standards are irrelevant. I am not trying to make everyone bow to my standards, though, am I? You wish to set up your moral standing as the standard for my entertainment. I invite you to mind your own damned business, and leave me and mine alone(oh no, I cussed!).
Now obviously the flip side of this is for me to not watch the show so that I don't compromise my standards or morals. Hey that's fine. I'll change the channel and give my attention to another set of commercials for another show's ratings and the shows that insist of inserting needless obscenities will not flourish as long as those who care about such things follow suit.
Great! Now you understand the concept of freedom! Continue that, and quit worrying about what your neighbor is watching.
One last thing I'll ask about is at what level would you stop wanting to see/hear obscenities on TV? Would you stop at seeing simulated homosexual acts? live murders? simulated bestiality? simulated male/female incest? the word f*ck said every 2 words like a school locker room? At what point will *you* start imposing your morals and standards on someone else who has even lower standards and morals than yourself?
There is no such level. If it disgusts me, I turn it off. If I do not want my kids watching it, I turn it off. Not a difficult concept, unless you feel some compulsion to control others.
More on topic, just because I can use a v-chip enabled TV or utilize TV ratings doesn't mean a show should be aired that has filth in it.
And this is the point. YOU don't like it, so YOU wish to enforce YOUR MORALS on SOMEONE ELSE.
You are free to think it is filth. You are free to keep it out of your house. You are even free to bitch about it in public. But the moment you try to dictate what I can watch, you've stepped over the line. If you don't like it, or don't want your kid seeing it, you know what to do. But keep the hell out of MY living room.
No, God does have an empirical effect on the universe. But because he acts on the universe from outside then you cannot set up a controlled experiment of known causes to 'make him do something' that can be measured and repeated. That's what I meant when I said that the scientific method of setting up known conditions and observing the repeatable consequence isn't likely to work with God.
There is no need to set up a special experiment. If your god is interfering with nature, it can be measured, unless it is entirely identical to natural forces, in which case it is again irrelevant. Since you have now identified yourself as a Christian, I can point to specifics. If a dead body returns to life, that would be measurable. If an amputee is spontaneously healed, that would be measurable. If a mountain casts itself into the sea, that is measurable. Any miracle which contravened known laws would be measurable, and anything like that would be empirical proof that SOMETHING exists, and thus evidence to believe. Despite claims of incredibly grandiose public miracles in the past, your god seems to be doing a good job of hiding now that we have the ability to critically examine the evidence.
Empirical evidence is essential for Christianity. If there was no evidence, then there would be nothing to suggest that it is true, and there would be no reason to believe. We seem to agree on that though.
I do agree. And it was the profound lack of empirical evidence that compelled me to reject Christianity(to be fair, the atrocious nature of the old testament god was also a compelling reason to reject it). If I ever see such evidence, I'll reconsider. In the meantime, I will remain in a state of non-belief.
Historians, archeologists, lawyers, (even astronomers!) etc, are all well-used to searching for truth in other ways. Just something to think about.
All of these people deal in empirical truths(well, some lawyers play to emotions rather than truth). That is, they are using evidence. Archeologists use the available data to reconstruct the past, as do historians. All of these people are dealing with historical records. They also have to sift the reliable elements from the superstition and mythological elements of ancient accounts, so they are well aware of the many ways humans get "creative" with their perception of reality.
You, on the other hand, profess to believe in a god. If your god exists, and has no empirical effect on the universe, then it has no relevance for humans. If your god does affect the universe, then it should be measurable. If there is no such evidence, then there is no reason to believe.
Is evidence of cause and effect that can be repeated at will the only kind of evidence?
For ascertaining the existence of something, yes. Once you abandon this principle, then anything is believable, from bigfoot to dryads to Odin to Set to Yahweh.
If a supernatural being exists and impacts the world, then it should be measurable and provable. If it doesn't, then it is irrelevant to us anyway.
Unless 'God' is nothing more than an artifact of the natural world, then the idea that you can expect normal scientific cause and effect to apply to him is at best silly and quite possibly rather arrogant. So scientific repeatability is out of the window before you have even started.
In other words, there is no proof. If you can't substantiate a claim, don't expect someone else to believe it.
Once you understand that then there may be some value in considering what other types of reasons we might have for believing certain things to be true.
The only rational reason for believing that something exists is that you have evidence. Without that, believing in such a thing is groundless supposition. You may be comfortable basing your life around that, but don't kid yourself about that basis.
What would you have done differently? Not allowed Megan back on-line? Yup. Ask my kids what happens when you fight over the Gamecube. The things done to this kid sucked, and I think the other family should be punished for it, but being a parent is not a part time job.
That's an easy idea in retrospect, but growing up did you ever bug your parents over and over about something until they decided to let you do it? In my case, I just make it clear that begging me is going to get something else revoked. It doesn't always stop the younger kids, but my older boy understands it.
Oh, yeah, a modern religion:
In a documentary to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled Divorce: Sharia Style, Dr Hasan goes further, advocating a sharia system for Britain. "If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal," he says. "Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all. "We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."
That was Suhaib Hasan, a Sharia judge who is pushing for integrating the Sharia into UK law. A modern Muslim in a first world country who spouts off the most barbaric, evil crap.
I remember when I met a Muslim for the first time. It was in college, and he was a young kid, born in Iraq but raised for most of his life in the USA. He was smart and likeable, and had many friends of all sorts of religions, including Jews.
I'll never forget one particular day. We were discussing religion, and got on the subject of the Jews. And, without missing a beat, he told me that the Jewish people were evil, and would one day have to be exterminated. Tell me, if this is a religion of peace, where did this come from? Raised by fairly liberal parents, raised in a (comparatively) liberal society, where is this idea of genocide being seeded?
You claim that Islam is not dogmatic, that it is more flexible. Tell me why the Muslims in Europe are pushing for Sharia for non-Muslims. Tell me why Muslims riot every time they get pissed off over a picture. Tell me why Theo Van Gogh died. Tell me why Hirsi Ali has a fatwa issued against her.
In fact, in that last case, let's see how you really are. Why don't you publicly state your name, and your opposition to the death sentence she lives under? I'll be happy to post your name in every discussion I have with Muslims.
Then you haven't read the Catechism(http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2377.htm): Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."
I'm no longer Catholic, but I can tell you that this Church position is nothing new.
In any case, there is currently no unified theory that explains the connection of the spiritual realm ("soul") and physical world.
Here, let me fix that for you:
In any case, there is currently no evidence of the spiritual realm ("soul")...
My guild comes up with some of the most interesting non-game related ideas while working on raids and whatnot. Vent makes for a very interactive situation.
I don't consider retiring young in a small town much to look forward to
And there's where you missed the point. I can retire before 40, but who says I have to stay here at that point? This town and its low cost of living represent a means to an end.
As to more options, I have four decent sized cities with thirty minutes of drive time, and several major cites just beyond that. Any of those is close enough to travel to on a whim. However, my favorite activites are SCUBA diving, riding my Harley with my wife and hanging out with my kids, none of which require a dense population center.
Yes, I could find something to do, but I doubt it would provide me with the same sense of satisfaction I get from my current job.
I'm a Perl programmer. My job is identical to what I would be doing anywhere else, except that I don't have to walk out of the door to go to work. Plus, I dictate my own work schedule.
Has anyone in the history of humanity ever been out-debated into changing their beliefs?
Yeah, me. But since I was the main debater on both sides, I'm not sure what that means:)
Some of us take advantage of certain perks, like the fact that the cost of living in small towns is next to nothing. In my case, I make 3x(working from home) the income that would give me a comfortable living in the small town I live in. The extra goes into investments. I could be retiring when most of the people around here are settling into the main job they'll have for the rest of their lives. And that's just sweet economics.
I've responded to a later comment of yours in this thread, but I thought this once raised a slightly different perspective.
People may mock creationism, but the creation of life via evolution is just as hard to believe: such as organic molecules becoming the first life form by chance.
Not really. It's been demonstrated that there are several groups of pre-biotic chemicals which exhibit the replication tendencies which could kick start the "arms race" of evolution.
a tornado could take a pile of bricks and some cement and a house could be produced.
This is a straw man argument. If you wanted a natural occurrence that is closer to evolution than your tornado example, look at some of the odd, deliberate looking formations created by geological processes. This more closely matches the time frames and gradual nature of evolutionary history. One wouldn't assume that these formations came to be in a single chaotic event, but it's easy to see how the working of glaciers and water over time can result in stunning features.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people mentioned how they started off learning to program on old 8-bit machines. Why not just go to eBay and grab one of those? I have several Ti 99-4A computers, a Commodore and a couple of Tandys, with the odd Timex thrown in. My kids picked up the instruction manuals and started hacking. They are 7 and 8, by the way. Once I showed them sprites on the TI, they were off and running.
That's too bad. I don't play the game, but I did pick up the trade paperback of the comic series and the first two novels. I rather enjoyed them, despite a serious lack of editing on the second novel. Any news on whether the last book is still coming out, at least?
I...couldn't stop watching.......
It's one thing to say "yes, it might have been like that" and quite another saying "it entirely was like that and you're a moron if you don't believe it".
And when, pray tell, have I ever said that we need to do that? The whole freaking point of this conversation is that you do not need to know every piece of data about a historical event or series of events in order to understand it in general. We don't need an example of every transitional form a branch of life went through in order to piece together the general family history, just like we don't need to know what Julius Caesar did on his 12th birthday to have a good idea of the course of his life. So, at least you recognize that your standard for proof is irrational with regards to human history. Now, apply that to evolution.
And your contention that I(or anyone else) claim to have a complete and absolute knowledge of evolution is silly. I never claimed that. I know of no evolutionary biologist who ever claimed that. Let's review what I said:
If the genes, morphology, geological location, age, etc., all point to something, denying it because every minute detail of the process can not be explicitly demonstrated is ridiculous.
Feel free to keep propping up strawmen if it works for you, though.
To say it with well defined binary logic: 1 = fact, 0 = theory. 1 = have data, 0 = no data.
Well, this is a pretty funny statement. I suggest you go read this. It is a link to the scientific method, and I think you should read it because you fundamentally confuse a hypothesis with a theory.
I think journalists are also to blame for scientific zeal, like the Discovery channel that unabashedly proclaims things like "when the dinosaurs were destroyed by the giant meteorite".
Well, they may be prone to hyperbole and hysteria, but at least they expose people to some actual science. It's much better than the hacks who spend their time updating us on what celebrities are doing.
Don't you realize how much nonsense that is?
No, I do not, actually.
Not only is that claiming another theory as being the truth, but all we have to "prove" that is a layer of ash found in about the same depth at various select places of the world and a couple of meteorite craters. But the reality might have looked entirely different.
How cute. You reduce the observations of the K-T boundary to a "layer of ash." You should really read up on these, and check your arguments for them.
That whole notion is completely and utterly ridiculous. Well, to me at least.
A personal problem that many are afflicted with.
Go on, and believe the world is a disk, I don't care.
Of course! Because I refuse to bury my head in the sand with regards to evolution I must also believe in a flat earth! Kudos on that devastating attack! I am swooning.
In ten years or so, they'll have another grand theory of evolution, supported by corroborating evidence that'll say the exact opposite of what they're saying today.
And what crystal ball did you pull this prophesy from?
Let me break it down for you. Science works because we constantly subject ideas to criticism and attack. When we acquire more information, we compare it against what we think we know. If it fits, it confirms our understanding. If it doesn't, we need to adjust our ideas.
If we find evidence(we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that the evidence is airtight) that refutes evolution, then, guess what? We'll adjust our ideas. It's what rational people do. Science is not religion. We don't need to cling to an idea like "Jesus healed a man of blindness with spit and mud" forever. We follow the evidence, and that willingn
Well, then read up a little about the Roman Catholic Church and Freemasonry.
I am an ex-Catholic, and very well versed in the history of that church, and with that of Christianity in general. I find little enough to respect in either the Catholics or the Freemasons. Both have done some good and much ill in their time, and both still cling to superstitions.
Western science would have never evolved without the freemasons, because the Roman Catholic Church was oppressing all research into non-religious matters. Scientists were routinely executed as heretics in those days.
I call bullshit. The Catholic church also funded science. The Freemasons had their part to play in the rise of rationalism, but to claim that western science depends on them is as silly as claiming that the Catholic church was the one thing that led us out of the Dark Ages.
That various evolutional theories existed before Charles Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" is great, but that doesn't change the impact of Darwin's theory on Western science.
Darwin presented an idea of the mechanism of evolution, namely natural selection. The idea of evolution, including even crude ideas of natural selection, were present for centuries, stretching back to the Greeks. Darwin did have a huge impact, but to imagine that it was new and formulated as an attack on the Catholics is the fantasy here. Lest we forget your words:
in the time when it appeared, there was absolutely no way of telling, but it was used as one of the weapons to fight the Catholic Church. And that's why it's still a mainstay.
The Theory of Evolution is not verifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be called a Theory. Don't confuse theories with facts.
The theory of the American Revolution is not verifiable. I mean, we have copious amounts of data pointing to it, but since it is a historical event, it must always be treated as conjecture, regardless of the explanatory power of the theory or the strength of evidence. Right?
Obviously, only someone afflicted with either profound ignorance or who has some sort of ideological statement to protect is going to deny the American Revolution just because we cannot now go back and verify it personally. The very fact that immense amounts of data point to it provides the only verification we can get of ANY historical event that we didn't personally witness. This is as true for human history as it is for natural history.
And yet, your article talks about Theories, and more Theories, and not once about facts.
I'm beginning to suspect that you have no clue what the term "theory" means. We also have a theory of gravity(several, to be precise). Are you going to jump out of a high rise window based on the fact that we only have theories?
Look, if you find a fossil that suggests a transition from one perceived evolutionary stage to another, then you're making an assumption about what happened inbetween those evolutionary stages.
Welcome to the science of history. If the genes, morphology, geological location, age, etc., all point to something, denying it because every minute detail of the process can not be explicitly demonstrated is ridiculous. You would have to reject most of human history to take up such an extremist position. I would bet that you do not do so.
You see, I'm a professional software developer. I believe only in logic and verifiable truth.
So am I, and quite successful, I might add.
And the Theory of Evolution just don't have enough meat for me. It's like finding individual bytes of a computer program and trying to reproduce a full, working program. Even if you find so many bytes, filling all the gaps is nothing but guesswork.
What a bad analogy. If I find sufficient data, I can extrapolate the rest(I know this, because I have done it before). Especially if my goal is to try and understand the program, and not to try and recrea
That doesn't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a fantasy tale of sorts ... in the time when it appeared, there was absolutely no way of telling, but it was used as one of the weapons to fight the Catholic Church.
Well, given that the roots of evolutionary thought appear before Christianity existed, I would have to say that that is nonsense. Aside from that, while I am not aware that the Catholic church has formally embraced evolution, it certainly has made it clear that evolution is largely acceptable to it's followers. It is largely the Protestant churches(especially those which embraced biblical literalism) that are threatened by evolution.
Of course everybody can come up with "corroborating evidence", but that doesn't change the fact that it's just a theory.
Actually, they can't. That is why "intelligent design" has no traction. There is not a speck of evidence for it.
We have absolutely no way of telling whether we've been created by whatever entity, or whether we've sprung into existence out of random, or out of evolution.
Yes, I suppose if we ignored everything we've learned about natural history, we could imagine all sorts of origins for ourselves. If we actually limit ourselves to verifiable fact, however, then evolution is apparent.
The missing links in anthropology are what makes proving evolution difficult. The so-called "evidence" there is razor-thin.
I suggest you study transitional fossils a little bit. It might clear up some of your misconceptions.
Insufficient proof? We have corroborating evidence from every field of science which touches on the question of evolution. The only people I have ever seen denying it had a religious precept to protect, bar none. Some cloak their ignorance in pseudo-science and hysteric hyperbole, but it does not make it a rational rebuttal. Science, by it's nature, is critical thought in action. It's the opposite of self-imposed ignorance, which is the phenomenon I was addressing.
And that sort of silly thinking is exactly why we have to worry about people's religion and need to push critical thinking. Because people who refuse to understand basic biological fact are trying to push their self-imposed ignorance upon everyone else.
Welcome to the USA, where the right and left wing agree on only one thing: the need to strip the American public of freedom and privacy. The only thing that differs is what excuse they use.
I don't watch videos of people getting murdered (rotten.com type of stuff). I have a reasonable expectation not to see a guy get his head sawed off while I'm flipping past CNN.
If CNN takes to airing things you don't like, by all means, avoid their products.
There must be a line drawn. If I accidentally see "Two girls, one cup" while scanning through basic cable, I'm gonna be pissed. YOU are gonna have to get in MY living room and clean the puke from MY CARPET!
Well, I hadn't actually known about that video, or the attendant hoopla, until your post. I guess that shows how prurient my tastes run. But, again, who cares? If you don't want the chance to see it, block whatever channels might contain it. Stick to TBN if you are worried you might be offended. Someone showed me tub girl one time, and I am not trying to censor the internet. I just avoid the spots I might not like. Freedom, it just works.
First, I'd love to know why you consider the things that make a show TV MA as opposed to TV LSV (or lower) entertainment?
Who said I did?
Second, I'm not forcing my morals on you. You aren't being forced to change. You may still subscribe to the channels that used to be the only source of content like what is now being aired on regular cable and the original networks. What value-add is there for obscenities to be aired? Why do I need to hear a detective on Law and Order call a suspect a "dick" instead of an "idiot" or even an "asshole"? That's high school talk; that isn't adult. Using that show as an example, are you trying to relive your high school years? Does it give you a rush to hear "dick" instead? Or maybe hearing it makes you feel like more of a man?
I actually do not care for shows like Law & Order, and my television habits would probably be considered tame by most standards. I am not, however, hung up on cuss words. I live in the real world, where people can and do use obscenities in everyday life. I do not consider it a problem, and I would think that the person who gets worked up over it is likely the person with the problem.
Even if you don't watch Law and Order there are other shows with similar issues and my questions still apply and can be generalized down to 1 question: why is it needed for entertainment? Obviously if you prefer that level of entertainment then the logical implication is that you admit your standards for entertainment and your morals are below that of the status quo set by society.
My standards are irrelevant. I am not trying to make everyone bow to my standards, though, am I? You wish to set up your moral standing as the standard for my entertainment. I invite you to mind your own damned business, and leave me and mine alone(oh no, I cussed!).
Now obviously the flip side of this is for me to not watch the show so that I don't compromise my standards or morals. Hey that's fine. I'll change the channel and give my attention to another set of commercials for another show's ratings and the shows that insist of inserting needless obscenities will not flourish as long as those who care about such things follow suit.
Great! Now you understand the concept of freedom! Continue that, and quit worrying about what your neighbor is watching.
One last thing I'll ask about is at what level would you stop wanting to see/hear obscenities on TV? Would you stop at seeing simulated homosexual acts? live murders? simulated bestiality? simulated male/female incest? the word f*ck said every 2 words like a school locker room? At what point will *you* start imposing your morals and standards on someone else who has even lower standards and morals than yourself?
There is no such level. If it disgusts me, I turn it off. If I do not want my kids watching it, I turn it off. Not a difficult concept, unless you feel some compulsion to control others.
More on topic, just because I can use a v-chip enabled TV or utilize TV ratings doesn't mean a show should be aired that has filth in it.
And this is the point. YOU don't like it, so YOU wish to enforce YOUR MORALS on SOMEONE ELSE.
You are free to think it is filth. You are free to keep it out of your house. You are even free to bitch about it in public. But the moment you try to dictate what I can watch, you've stepped over the line. If you don't like it, or don't want your kid seeing it, you know what to do. But keep the hell out of MY living room.
No, God does have an empirical effect on the universe. But because he acts on the universe from outside then you cannot set up a controlled experiment of known causes to 'make him do something' that can be measured and repeated. That's what I meant when I said that the scientific method of setting up known conditions and observing the repeatable consequence isn't likely to work with God.
There is no need to set up a special experiment. If your god is interfering with nature, it can be measured, unless it is entirely identical to natural forces, in which case it is again irrelevant. Since you have now identified yourself as a Christian, I can point to specifics. If a dead body returns to life, that would be measurable. If an amputee is spontaneously healed, that would be measurable. If a mountain casts itself into the sea, that is measurable. Any miracle which contravened known laws would be measurable, and anything like that would be empirical proof that SOMETHING exists, and thus evidence to believe. Despite claims of incredibly grandiose public miracles in the past, your god seems to be doing a good job of hiding now that we have the ability to critically examine the evidence.
Empirical evidence is essential for Christianity. If there was no evidence, then there would be nothing to suggest that it is true, and there would be no reason to believe. We seem to agree on that though.
I do agree. And it was the profound lack of empirical evidence that compelled me to reject Christianity(to be fair, the atrocious nature of the old testament god was also a compelling reason to reject it). If I ever see such evidence, I'll reconsider. In the meantime, I will remain in a state of non-belief.
Historians, archeologists, lawyers, (even astronomers!) etc, are all well-used to searching for truth in other ways. Just something to think about.
All of these people deal in empirical truths(well, some lawyers play to emotions rather than truth). That is, they are using evidence. Archeologists use the available data to reconstruct the past, as do historians. All of these people are dealing with historical records. They also have to sift the reliable elements from the superstition and mythological elements of ancient accounts, so they are well aware of the many ways humans get "creative" with their perception of reality.
You, on the other hand, profess to believe in a god. If your god exists, and has no empirical effect on the universe, then it has no relevance for humans. If your god does affect the universe, then it should be measurable. If there is no such evidence, then there is no reason to believe.
Is evidence of cause and effect that can be repeated at will the only kind of evidence?
For ascertaining the existence of something, yes. Once you abandon this principle, then anything is believable, from bigfoot to dryads to Odin to Set to Yahweh.
If a supernatural being exists and impacts the world, then it should be measurable and provable. If it doesn't, then it is irrelevant to us anyway.
Unless 'God' is nothing more than an artifact of the natural world, then the idea that you can expect normal scientific cause and effect to apply to him is at best silly and quite possibly rather arrogant. So scientific repeatability is out of the window before you have even started.
In other words, there is no proof. If you can't substantiate a claim, don't expect someone else to believe it.
Once you understand that then there may be some value in considering what other types of reasons we might have for believing certain things to be true.
The only rational reason for believing that something exists is that you have evidence. Without that, believing in such a thing is groundless supposition. You may be comfortable basing your life around that, but don't kid yourself about that basis.
What would you have done differently? Not allowed Megan back on-line?
Yup. Ask my kids what happens when you fight over the Gamecube. The things done to this kid sucked, and I think the other family should be punished for it, but being a parent is not a part time job.
That's an easy idea in retrospect, but growing up did you ever bug your parents over and over about something until they decided to let you do it?
In my case, I just make it clear that begging me is going to get something else revoked. It doesn't always stop the younger kids, but my older boy understands it.
Oh, yeah, a modern religion:
In a documentary to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled Divorce: Sharia Style, Dr Hasan goes further, advocating a sharia system for Britain. "If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal," he says. "Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all. "We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."
That was Suhaib Hasan, a Sharia judge who is pushing for integrating the Sharia into UK law. A modern Muslim in a first world country who spouts off the most barbaric, evil crap.
I remember when I met a Muslim for the first time. It was in college, and he was a young kid, born in Iraq but raised for most of his life in the USA. He was smart and likeable, and had many friends of all sorts of religions, including Jews.
I'll never forget one particular day. We were discussing religion, and got on the subject of the Jews. And, without missing a beat, he told me that the Jewish people were evil, and would one day have to be exterminated. Tell me, if this is a religion of peace, where did this come from? Raised by fairly liberal parents, raised in a (comparatively) liberal society, where is this idea of genocide being seeded?
You claim that Islam is not dogmatic, that it is more flexible. Tell me why the Muslims in Europe are pushing for Sharia for non-Muslims. Tell me why Muslims riot every time they get pissed off over a picture. Tell me why Theo Van Gogh died. Tell me why Hirsi Ali has a fatwa issued against her.
In fact, in that last case, let's see how you really are. Why don't you publicly state your name, and your opposition to the death sentence she lives under? I'll be happy to post your name in every discussion I have with Muslims.
Then you haven't read the Catechism(http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2377.htm):
Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."
I'm no longer Catholic, but I can tell you that this Church position is nothing new.
In any case, there is currently no unified theory that explains the connection of the spiritual realm ("soul") and physical world.
Here, let me fix that for you: In any case, there is currently no evidence of the spiritual realm ("soul")...
My guild comes up with some of the most interesting non-game related ideas while working on raids and whatnot. Vent makes for a very interactive situation.
I don't consider retiring young in a small town much to look forward to
And there's where you missed the point. I can retire before 40, but who says I have to stay here at that point? This town and its low cost of living represent a means to an end.
As to more options, I have four decent sized cities with thirty minutes of drive time, and several major cites just beyond that. Any of those is close enough to travel to on a whim. However, my favorite activites are SCUBA diving, riding my Harley with my wife and hanging out with my kids, none of which require a dense population center.
Yes, I could find something to do, but I doubt it would provide me with the same sense of satisfaction I get from my current job.
I'm a Perl programmer. My job is identical to what I would be doing anywhere else, except that I don't have to walk out of the door to go to work. Plus, I dictate my own work schedule.
Has anyone in the history of humanity ever been out-debated into changing their beliefs? :)
Yeah, me. But since I was the main debater on both sides, I'm not sure what that means
Some of us take advantage of certain perks, like the fact that the cost of living in small towns is next to nothing. In my case, I make 3x(working from home) the income that would give me a comfortable living in the small town I live in. The extra goes into investments. I could be retiring when most of the people around here are settling into the main job they'll have for the rest of their lives. And that's just sweet economics.
I've responded to a later comment of yours in this thread, but I thought this once raised a slightly different perspective.
People may mock creationism, but the creation of life via evolution is just as hard to believe: such as organic molecules becoming the first life form by chance.
Not really. It's been demonstrated that there are several groups of pre-biotic chemicals which exhibit the replication tendencies which could kick start the "arms race" of evolution.
a tornado could take a pile of bricks and some cement and a house could be produced.
This is a straw man argument. If you wanted a natural occurrence that is closer to evolution than your tornado example, look at some of the odd, deliberate looking formations created by geological processes. This more closely matches the time frames and gradual nature of evolutionary history. One wouldn't assume that these formations came to be in a single chaotic event, but it's easy to see how the working of glaciers and water over time can result in stunning features.