I disagree with you on point 2 - evolution can't be proven to a complete certainty either. Therefore, a leap of assumption must be taken to bring evolution from "possible" to "fact".
You make your statement from a position of "evolution is fact and cannot be refuted" - you said as much when you accuse Creationists of "distorting the facts in an attempt to make them fit..." And in doing so, you basically call Creationists not only stupid but also deceitful, and that's no way to win an argument.
And once again we come back to the problem of trying to hold faith to the same standards as science. I don't think that creationism should be taught in the same context as evolution, but I don't think it shouldn't be taught at all in at least some aspect (religious studies, human history, philosophy, etc). But don't start attacking faith by trying to make it scientific.
there is no such thing as a scientific law. All knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.
So, in effect, you're saying that science is LESS trustworthy than a god who never changes?
I completely understand. It's hard for intelligent people (myself included) who have formed their own opinions through (what appears to them as) simple logic and their own reasoning to understand why other people who claim to be just as intelligent arrive at spectacularly different perspectives. It just goes to show that each one of us is different in our own way.
I am not an absolutist - it was responding to sarcasm with sarcasm.
Honestly, I believe in leveling the playing field. If science is going to demand that religion be held to higher-than-faith standards of evidence, then at the very least science should be held to its own standards of proof. Remember, it's not the law of evolution, but the theory. We haven't had a good scientific law in a long time.
See, you go and make a good point and then you turn around and make an asinine argument based on assumptions and generalizations, AND you resort to name-calling.
Amen, sister! Now if only sciences and scientists would shut the hell up until they can come back with absolute proof that their theories are correct and stop trying to pass off unproven ones as laws. I'm a staunch defender of the separation of "maybe" and state.
To clarify, I did not mean to say that you're all full of it, but rather that just because you and all your friends think the same way doesn't mean you're right.
My point is that just because all of your friends are educated and don't believe in creationism doesn't mean that you're not all totally full of it - there do exist different views and beliefs outside of what you know, and just because they exist outside of your group of educated and like-minded friends doesn't mean they're not just as valid.
You seem to be missing the key element: faith. Defined as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen", faith is something that cannot be measured or understand by the same standard that science is. Faith is something that you have absent any concrete proof. It's called being spiritual - and if you try to understand religion from a scientific standpoint, you will only become more frustrated. Let people believe what they want and don't ridicule them or pick them apart for having something you don't (i.e. faith).
I can't quite see why it has to be one view or the other, is there any real reason why a creator couldn't create self modifying life forms? Seems like the move of a smart and possibly lazy deity to me.
It is SO hard in this world today for a person to not be polarized towards one side of a debate or another. You can't take the middle road or even just plain not have an opinion. Quite frankly, I agree with this particular conjecture. I like to think that the earth was created "in progress" - couldn't an all-powerful god create a world (or for that matter, a universe) that is billions of years old?
I have no problem with people who have no problem with other people's beliefs. My problem lies with those who belittle people who believe in creationism/ID saying their views are outdated and ignorant because they base them on faith.
The bigger issue here is that Americans are relying almost entirely on the school systems for their children's education. If parents aren't teaching values (or religious beliefs) to their children, then you have one of two scenarios: 1) the teaching goes on in the schools, and then you get dangerously close to - if not right on top of - seperation of church and state, with the state imposing a values system (i.e. religious beliefs) where it has no right to, or 2) the children are not taught values at all - which leads to a whole generation of people who have a much less defined idea of right and wrong.
Yes, that is the argument that makes sense, but the one that is making waves is the one that says that beliefs must now be provable, otherwise you're an antiquated, neanderthalic trogolodyte, and you're stupid and ignorant for believing in creationism. That's what has got so many people mad as hell (myself included). What happened to faith in this world today?
I truly dislike the summary of this article because it's basically saying "I'm an atheist, and I'm surprised that British people largely believe in ID. I thought they were smarter than that." It's just kind of annoying to me how atheists try to point out that they are more sophisticated and how everyone who believes in ID is simply ignorant. Who knows who's right, but everyone believes something different, and there's no reason to be surprised that a lot of people believe in ID.
Hear here! I'm so SICK of people calling faith or belief in something other than evolution outdated, antiquated, neaderthalic, trogolodytic, whatever. Since when did these people become SO enlightened? So much moreso than the rest of us? Evolution can't be proven any more than creationism/ID can - but just because it can't be proven doesn't mean it's not true. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. For pete's sake, when did it become wrong to have faith in something?
What's all this about "a throwback to a pre-enlightened time"? Who said we're enlightened? Oh, that's right, we declared ourselves enlightened. What self-aggrandizing bullshit. Seems like we've lowered the standard for enlightenment.
And since when did it become passe to have or profess faith in this country?
I agree that murder is morally wrong, but I guess that perhaps the question is not whether it's morally right or wrong to kill but rather is the protagonist in SotC more justified in his choice to kill than a GTA character because his end goal is more admirable? I suppose it's another question of ends justifying the means...
I meant to add that the question SotC poses is much harder to answer in terms of what is right morally ("more challenging ethically", to quote the first comment). With GTA, it isn't hard to answer at all - it's much more clear-cut.
That's not what he's saying at all. The point is that characters in GTA are very clear in their moral standpoints. There is no mistaking their morality. Killing for greed (revenge, just for kicks, etc.), stealing, driving recklessly - all morally reprehensible acts that the game glorifies but still makes no grey areas on the issue whether it's good or bad.
SotC, on the other hand, posits the question of morality of taking a life to save another. Is it admirable that you risk your own life and limb for love, or is it detestable that to reach your end, you must slaughter the colossi?
The original Avengers and Doctor Who were/are both British shows, but they still made the list. As I read through the list, I expected Farscape to be towards the top, but to not see it at ALL? I mean, with Lost, the new Battlestar Galactica, and Stargate Atlantis on there, you'd expect a finished series with more than one or two seasons under its belt would have made the list ahead of them... Go figure.
That article said that it will be the last Zelda game "as we know it" - meaning the next game will be markedly different from previous games in the series. Honestly, how many times can you have the "go into a dungeon and/or collect one of the 3/4/6/8 items you need to open the last level" game structure? Not saying I don't like the Zelda games (I DO like them), but the game structure in every Zelda game since its inception has been essentially the same. They're probably planning on reinventing the franchise - though I hope they'll at least come out with a decent Zelda DS game and let it pass the system by like they did with Metroid and the N64.
Gah, you really think Nintendo would abandon that cash cow of a quality franchise?
We actually had to WATCH that movie for one of the classes I had with the aforementioned music tech professor. I remember the whole class laughing their asses off during Brian Wilson's section.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with you on point 2 - evolution can't be proven to a complete certainty either. Therefore, a leap of assumption must be taken to bring evolution from "possible" to "fact".
You make your statement from a position of "evolution is fact and cannot be refuted" - you said as much when you accuse Creationists of "distorting the facts in an attempt to make them fit..." And in doing so, you basically call Creationists not only stupid but also deceitful, and that's no way to win an argument.
And once again we come back to the problem of trying to hold faith to the same standards as science. I don't think that creationism should be taught in the same context as evolution, but I don't think it shouldn't be taught at all in at least some aspect (religious studies, human history, philosophy, etc). But don't start attacking faith by trying to make it scientific.
there is no such thing as a scientific law. All knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.
So, in effect, you're saying that science is LESS trustworthy than a god who never changes?
I completely understand. It's hard for intelligent people (myself included) who have formed their own opinions through (what appears to them as) simple logic and their own reasoning to understand why other people who claim to be just as intelligent arrive at spectacularly different perspectives. It just goes to show that each one of us is different in our own way.
I am not an absolutist - it was responding to sarcasm with sarcasm.
Honestly, I believe in leveling the playing field. If science is going to demand that religion be held to higher-than-faith standards of evidence, then at the very least science should be held to its own standards of proof. Remember, it's not the law of evolution, but the theory. We haven't had a good scientific law in a long time.
See, you go and make a good point and then you turn around and make an asinine argument based on assumptions and generalizations, AND you resort to name-calling.
Amen, sister! Now if only sciences and scientists would shut the hell up until they can come back with absolute proof that their theories are correct and stop trying to pass off unproven ones as laws. I'm a staunch defender of the separation of "maybe" and state.
To clarify, I did not mean to say that you're all full of it, but rather that just because you and all your friends think the same way doesn't mean you're right.
[jewish accent] This is what I'm saying!
My point is that just because all of your friends are educated and don't believe in creationism doesn't mean that you're not all totally full of it - there do exist different views and beliefs outside of what you know, and just because they exist outside of your group of educated and like-minded friends doesn't mean they're not just as valid.
Further proof that ignorance knows no bounds...
How about expanding your circle of friends to people who might have different views than you? Oh wait, that might make you open-minded...
You seem to be missing the key element: faith. Defined as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen", faith is something that cannot be measured or understand by the same standard that science is. Faith is something that you have absent any concrete proof. It's called being spiritual - and if you try to understand religion from a scientific standpoint, you will only become more frustrated. Let people believe what they want and don't ridicule them or pick them apart for having something you don't (i.e. faith).
I can't quite see why it has to be one view or the other, is there any real reason why a creator couldn't create self modifying life forms? Seems like the move of a smart and possibly lazy deity to me.
It is SO hard in this world today for a person to not be polarized towards one side of a debate or another. You can't take the middle road or even just plain not have an opinion. Quite frankly, I agree with this particular conjecture. I like to think that the earth was created "in progress" - couldn't an all-powerful god create a world (or for that matter, a universe) that is billions of years old?
I have no problem with people who have no problem with other people's beliefs. My problem lies with those who belittle people who believe in creationism/ID saying their views are outdated and ignorant because they base them on faith.
The bigger issue here is that Americans are relying almost entirely on the school systems for their children's education. If parents aren't teaching values (or religious beliefs) to their children, then you have one of two scenarios: 1) the teaching goes on in the schools, and then you get dangerously close to - if not right on top of - seperation of church and state, with the state imposing a values system (i.e. religious beliefs) where it has no right to, or 2) the children are not taught values at all - which leads to a whole generation of people who have a much less defined idea of right and wrong.
Oh, I'm sorry... I guess people aren't allowed to believe what they want to in your world. I didn't realize you had a corner on the truth market.
Yes, that is the argument that makes sense, but the one that is making waves is the one that says that beliefs must now be provable, otherwise you're an antiquated, neanderthalic trogolodyte, and you're stupid and ignorant for believing in creationism. That's what has got so many people mad as hell (myself included). What happened to faith in this world today?
I truly dislike the summary of this article because it's basically saying "I'm an atheist, and I'm surprised that British people largely believe in ID. I thought they were smarter than that." It's just kind of annoying to me how atheists try to point out that they are more sophisticated and how everyone who believes in ID is simply ignorant. Who knows who's right, but everyone believes something different, and there's no reason to be surprised that a lot of people believe in ID.
Hear here! I'm so SICK of people calling faith or belief in something other than evolution outdated, antiquated, neaderthalic, trogolodytic, whatever. Since when did these people become SO enlightened? So much moreso than the rest of us? Evolution can't be proven any more than creationism/ID can - but just because it can't be proven doesn't mean it's not true. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. For pete's sake, when did it become wrong to have faith in something?
What's all this about "a throwback to a pre-enlightened time"? Who said we're enlightened? Oh, that's right, we declared ourselves enlightened. What self-aggrandizing bullshit. Seems like we've lowered the standard for enlightenment.
And since when did it become passe to have or profess faith in this country?
I agree that murder is morally wrong, but I guess that perhaps the question is not whether it's morally right or wrong to kill but rather is the protagonist in SotC more justified in his choice to kill than a GTA character because his end goal is more admirable? I suppose it's another question of ends justifying the means...
I meant to add that the question SotC poses is much harder to answer in terms of what is right morally ("more challenging ethically", to quote the first comment). With GTA, it isn't hard to answer at all - it's much more clear-cut.
That's not what he's saying at all. The point is that characters in GTA are very clear in their moral standpoints. There is no mistaking their morality. Killing for greed (revenge, just for kicks, etc.), stealing, driving recklessly - all morally reprehensible acts that the game glorifies but still makes no grey areas on the issue whether it's good or bad.
SotC, on the other hand, posits the question of morality of taking a life to save another. Is it admirable that you risk your own life and limb for love, or is it detestable that to reach your end, you must slaughter the colossi?
The original Avengers and Doctor Who were/are both British shows, but they still made the list. As I read through the list, I expected Farscape to be towards the top, but to not see it at ALL? I mean, with Lost, the new Battlestar Galactica, and Stargate Atlantis on there, you'd expect a finished series with more than one or two seasons under its belt would have made the list ahead of them... Go figure.
That article said that it will be the last Zelda game "as we know it" - meaning the next game will be markedly different from previous games in the series. Honestly, how many times can you have the "go into a dungeon and/or collect one of the 3/4/6/8 items you need to open the last level" game structure? Not saying I don't like the Zelda games (I DO like them), but the game structure in every Zelda game since its inception has been essentially the same. They're probably planning on reinventing the franchise - though I hope they'll at least come out with a decent Zelda DS game and let it pass the system by like they did with Metroid and the N64.
Gah, you really think Nintendo would abandon that cash cow of a quality franchise?
William Purse, Duquesne University.
We actually had to WATCH that movie for one of the classes I had with the aforementioned music tech professor. I remember the whole class laughing their asses off during Brian Wilson's section.
FYI, Bob didn't invent the theremin, but rather it was his work building and marketing them that led to his innovation of the modern synthesizer.