Yes. And people switch institutions, and fields. At the moment, if someone has a common name, looking up their papers is an exercise in AI. With a unique identifier you'd be able to tell Google Scholar "get me all the other papers by this author in the last ten years."
No, you've oversimplified. Einstein would be unhappy.
What they've found is more interesting - there's an interaction between political leanings and level of education. If your political stance is normally an AGW-skeptical one, more education makes you MORE skeptical. If your political stance is normally AGW-accepting, more education makes you LESS skeptical.
Political affiliation actually changes the sign of the education effect.
I'm assuming the submitter quoted that bit from somewhere (it's not the paper abstract). I'm making that assumption because the submitter did something incredibly annoying: he wrote "quoting:" followed by a quote, properly enclosed in quotation marks.
"Very few (and let's face it, wacky) sects out there actually refuse to accept Darwin's theories of evolution these days, so I'm not really seeing the story here."
Well, you're reading an American website and in the US (or major parts of it at least) apparently the wacky sects are either in the majority or exercise enough power to actually make evolution a matter of debate and do things like force creationism to be taught as an alternative in science class.
The flood is not evolution, it's revolution - wiping clean and rebuilding. Although if you read the REST of the account of the flood, there was potentially some extinction but no changing of existing animals or creation of new ones. So no, it doesn't explain the slow, ongoing changes we see in the fossil record.
And BTW:
Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
You can take any "why" answer and use it as a "how" answer. If you're going to do that to science then you have to do it with everything and there is no why.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Because there was a quantum fluctuation of the right size that kicked off the big bang, etc.
Because God wished there to be something and created the world.
But those are just the how! WHY was there a quantum fluctuation? WHY did God wish there to be something?
Did you never play the why game to irritate your parents?
Parts of the book, in some form are older than 400 years. The GP is absolutely correct, what most English speaking people think of as the bible is somewhere between 50 and 1500 years old, depending on how generous you want to be, and which bible you're talking about.
The Good News Bible was published in 1966. The King James Bible was finished in 1611 (presumably what the GP is referring to). The bible was separated into verses in the sixteenth century. The first printing press bibles were produced in the 1400s. The bible was separated into chapters in the 13th century. The New Testament was specified by the Council of Trent in 1563.
Incidentally, "the Bible" differs depending on what sect you're talking about, with some including or excluding various books in the Old Testament.
Absolutely. Religion too. The difference is that science recognizes this, freely admits it, and specifies tested methods for testing theories, improving them, and discovering bias. Religion? Not so much.
Um, that seems to be what you're doing. Leakey is absolutely correct - the bible doesn't explain evolution. It also doesn't preclude it. But some religions DO deny evolution.
You're the one who's setting it up as an all or nothing science vs. religion. Leakey has only said that, on the topic of evolution, religion doesn't explain it and denying it based on religion is silly.
"The people who are most adamant that creationism is the right way are those who take what is written in the Bible word-for-word."
They do not. You can't take the bible word for word. It's too contradictory, and also too vague. It must be interpreted (not to mention translated). There are people who choose to take parts of the bible word for word, but when you talk to them you quickly find out that they either haven't read other parts or choose not to think about them.
You're only seeing indirect evidence of the ball, in the form of photons. You don't KNOW the ball is really there, or that it's moving in a particular way, or that it's not being pulled down by elves (or pushed by angels) that you simply can't see because they don't interact with photons.
As evidence of this, there are all sorts of things that people see that don't seem to exist, and all sorts of things that people don't see that probably do exist. Air for example. You're not going to deny air are you? Or shamanistic magic that permeates all things. Tell me you're not going to deny that too, just because you can't see it?
I hate to tell you, but if you're having doubts about evolution because of the slight chance that the world really did pop into existence 6000 years ago, you'd better be having doubts about everything. It's possible gravity is a sham and you're being held on the ground by angels on your shoulders, that computer you're typing on doesn't work by modulating the flow of electrons but rather is infused by the blood of Christ, and that big ball of light in the sky isn't really a massive collection of fusing gas but is the naked spirit of God.
The probability of all these alternative explanations, including the evolution one, is roughly the same.
"Religion / spirituality doesn't speak to science. The set of questions that science can answer are not within the same realm."
Nonsense. Many, maybe most, of the questions religion has claimed to answer were originally mysterious but have since been cleared up by science. That leaves some embarrassing claims for religion to initially violently support then quietly sweep under the rug. The origin of life on Earth is one of those things that's sort of in between the two phases. Most religions have accepted evolution but a few are still in the opposition phase. Fortunately in much of the modern world they have to settle for vehement instead of violent.
I don't think most people have a problem with religion per se, they have a problem with the religious constantly pushing it on other people. If you want to quietly take solace in your faith when someone dies, go for it. But don't try to force children to be taught creationism.
Some religions are better than others at facing their shrinking reality. Buddhism, for example:
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." -- Dalai Lama
And that's why not everyone is homosexual. There are lots of species of which a significant number are homosexual. That means there must be a benefit of some kind to homosexuality, so the truth is likely the exact opposite of what you said.
That's fantastic if they kick them out when they're 18. If it's when they're 14, it's a bit of a problem. The brides are indeed a bigger problem though.
Your link is kind of suspect - the big headline at the top of the page isn't supported by any of the quotes.
Having kids with a close relative DOES increase that child's risk of genetic diseases. As for mere sex with a relative, laws against that vary quite a bit, from not illegal at all to punishable by life in prison. Yes, some places are more backward in that regard than others. I'm not sure you can blame the bible for it though - there's plenty of incest in the bible.
Incest has genetic risks. It actually has a downside. Although in at least some places you can have an incestuous marriage if you don't have kids.
Polygamy and polyandry also lead to societal disruptions. Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities. Poly* marriages that don't involve religious and other craziness probably should be allowed. When you guys can figure out homosexual marriage you can start working on that one.
It's not a bad idea. Facebook desperately needs to grow their profits. They're an advertising company, just like Google. So all the arguments for Google making a phone also apply to Facebook, except that in Facebook's case, Google has already done all the hard work (designing the OS and getting the manufacturers to build compatible phones) and FB basically just has to modify the ad server address and slap their logo on it.
The GP must have been smoking crack. As is, the sentence makes sense and does not have the meaning the GP claims. Adding the comma makes it seem like there should be an "is" after the "and," giving the sentence the erroneous meaning.
It's pretty hard to be a fiction author and make money while not charging for your work. How did these people make money before the printing press? Back then you didn't have to worry about someone copying your book because the copying was the hard part. There weren't many authors, and many of those were paid a salary by patrons, frequently royalty.
Anyway, why should everybody work to the business model YOU prefer?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And people switch institutions, and fields. At the moment, if someone has a common name, looking up their papers is an exercise in AI. With a unique identifier you'd be able to tell Google Scholar "get me all the other papers by this author in the last ten years."
I don't think you can count it as a threat when it's spelled wrong.
A bigger number on the box. Kind of like megapixels.
Yeah, you're right. Plummeting sales, stock in free fall. RIM is just fine! It's all FUD!
No, you've oversimplified. Einstein would be unhappy.
What they've found is more interesting - there's an interaction between political leanings and level of education. If your political stance is normally an AGW-skeptical one, more education makes you MORE skeptical. If your political stance is normally AGW-accepting, more education makes you LESS skeptical.
Political affiliation actually changes the sign of the education effect.
I'm assuming the submitter quoted that bit from somewhere (it's not the paper abstract). I'm making that assumption because the submitter did something incredibly annoying: he wrote "quoting:" followed by a quote, properly enclosed in quotation marks.
"Very few (and let's face it, wacky) sects out there actually refuse to accept Darwin's theories of evolution these days, so I'm not really seeing the story here."
Well, you're reading an American website and in the US (or major parts of it at least) apparently the wacky sects are either in the majority or exercise enough power to actually make evolution a matter of debate and do things like force creationism to be taught as an alternative in science class.
The flood is not evolution, it's revolution - wiping clean and rebuilding. Although if you read the REST of the account of the flood, there was potentially some extinction but no changing of existing animals or creation of new ones. So no, it doesn't explain the slow, ongoing changes we see in the fossil record.
And BTW:
Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Men (and women) have lips, so God does as well.
You can take any "why" answer and use it as a "how" answer. If you're going to do that to science then you have to do it with everything and there is no why.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Because there was a quantum fluctuation of the right size that kicked off the big bang, etc.
Because God wished there to be something and created the world.
But those are just the how! WHY was there a quantum fluctuation? WHY did God wish there to be something?
Did you never play the why game to irritate your parents?
Parts of the book, in some form are older than 400 years. The GP is absolutely correct, what most English speaking people think of as the bible is somewhere between 50 and 1500 years old, depending on how generous you want to be, and which bible you're talking about.
The Good News Bible was published in 1966. The King James Bible was finished in 1611 (presumably what the GP is referring to). The bible was separated into verses in the sixteenth century. The first printing press bibles were produced in the 1400s. The bible was separated into chapters in the 13th century. The New Testament was specified by the Council of Trent in 1563.
Incidentally, "the Bible" differs depending on what sect you're talking about, with some including or excluding various books in the Old Testament.
Absolutely. Religion too. The difference is that science recognizes this, freely admits it, and specifies tested methods for testing theories, improving them, and discovering bias. Religion? Not so much.
Um, that seems to be what you're doing. Leakey is absolutely correct - the bible doesn't explain evolution. It also doesn't preclude it. But some religions DO deny evolution.
You're the one who's setting it up as an all or nothing science vs. religion. Leakey has only said that, on the topic of evolution, religion doesn't explain it and denying it based on religion is silly.
"The people who are most adamant that creationism is the right way are those who take what is written in the Bible word-for-word."
They do not. You can't take the bible word for word. It's too contradictory, and also too vague. It must be interpreted (not to mention translated). There are people who choose to take parts of the bible word for word, but when you talk to them you quickly find out that they either haven't read other parts or choose not to think about them.
You're only seeing indirect evidence of the ball, in the form of photons. You don't KNOW the ball is really there, or that it's moving in a particular way, or that it's not being pulled down by elves (or pushed by angels) that you simply can't see because they don't interact with photons.
As evidence of this, there are all sorts of things that people see that don't seem to exist, and all sorts of things that people don't see that probably do exist. Air for example. You're not going to deny air are you? Or shamanistic magic that permeates all things. Tell me you're not going to deny that too, just because you can't see it?
I hate to tell you, but if you're having doubts about evolution because of the slight chance that the world really did pop into existence 6000 years ago, you'd better be having doubts about everything. It's possible gravity is a sham and you're being held on the ground by angels on your shoulders, that computer you're typing on doesn't work by modulating the flow of electrons but rather is infused by the blood of Christ, and that big ball of light in the sky isn't really a massive collection of fusing gas but is the naked spirit of God.
The probability of all these alternative explanations, including the evolution one, is roughly the same.
"Religion / spirituality doesn't speak to science. The set of questions that science can answer are not within the same realm."
Nonsense. Many, maybe most, of the questions religion has claimed to answer were originally mysterious but have since been cleared up by science. That leaves some embarrassing claims for religion to initially violently support then quietly sweep under the rug. The origin of life on Earth is one of those things that's sort of in between the two phases. Most religions have accepted evolution but a few are still in the opposition phase. Fortunately in much of the modern world they have to settle for vehement instead of violent.
I don't think most people have a problem with religion per se, they have a problem with the religious constantly pushing it on other people. If you want to quietly take solace in your faith when someone dies, go for it. But don't try to force children to be taught creationism.
Some religions are better than others at facing their shrinking reality. Buddhism, for example:
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." -- Dalai Lama
Your teenage rebellion must have been something to see. From a distance.
And that's why not everyone is homosexual. There are lots of species of which a significant number are homosexual. That means there must be a benefit of some kind to homosexuality, so the truth is likely the exact opposite of what you said.
That's fantastic if they kick them out when they're 18. If it's when they're 14, it's a bit of a problem. The brides are indeed a bigger problem though.
Your link is kind of suspect - the big headline at the top of the page isn't supported by any of the quotes.
Having kids with a close relative DOES increase that child's risk of genetic diseases. As for mere sex with a relative, laws against that vary quite a bit, from not illegal at all to punishable by life in prison. Yes, some places are more backward in that regard than others. I'm not sure you can blame the bible for it though - there's plenty of incest in the bible.
Incest has genetic risks. It actually has a downside. Although in at least some places you can have an incestuous marriage if you don't have kids.
Polygamy and polyandry also lead to societal disruptions. Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities. Poly* marriages that don't involve religious and other craziness probably should be allowed. When you guys can figure out homosexual marriage you can start working on that one.
Assuming you're talking about Linus and Linux, he had a LITTLE bit of help along the way.
Napoleon didn't almost subjugate anything without the resources of one of the world's most powerful nation states.
Larry Wall also had quite a bit of help from others making Perl what it is today.
Nice job picking examples that make the GPs point though.
It's not a bad idea. Facebook desperately needs to grow their profits. They're an advertising company, just like Google. So all the arguments for Google making a phone also apply to Facebook, except that in Facebook's case, Google has already done all the hard work (designing the OS and getting the manufacturers to build compatible phones) and FB basically just has to modify the ad server address and slap their logo on it.
The GP must have been smoking crack. As is, the sentence makes sense and does not have the meaning the GP claims. Adding the comma makes it seem like there should be an "is" after the "and," giving the sentence the erroneous meaning.
It's pretty hard to be a fiction author and make money while not charging for your work. How did these people make money before the printing press? Back then you didn't have to worry about someone copying your book because the copying was the hard part. There weren't many authors, and many of those were paid a salary by patrons, frequently royalty.
Anyway, why should everybody work to the business model YOU prefer?