It's not all that, let me tell you. I've not noticed any "sharpening" of my mental acuity, quite the opposite. I feel more distracted and less able to focus on it. Now, give me some good old tried and true stimulants, which mostly kick the brain into super-learning mode, and then we'll talk. Yep, my drug of choice is still Adderall (amphetamine salts).
I've never really looked at ICR before, but the more I hear, the worse it sounds. I'll have to keep that in mind in any future discussions. Please don't associate me with ICR. If it's the group that I'm thinking of, then they're not only dishonest, but perhaps crooks, also.
I don't know whether or not you'd call me an extreme evolutionist
No, I wouldn't call you that. You don't seem to have the knee-jerk reaction I would expect from one.
But, here's something for you to consider. if I could show you a way that a literal interpretation of the creation event in Genesis (as in 6 days) could line up with the age of the universe (roughly 13-15 billion years old), and that the order of creation would match the evolutionary "branching", would you be interested?
Evolution doesn't deal with creation of the universe nor with the creation of life. Evolution deals with a very specific problem: the origin of species.
With a degree in genetics I would have thought you'd have understood that evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe.
That's a rather terse way to define evolution. If, in fact, evolution is interested in the "Origin of Species" then the beginning (ie, where the first species arose from) is inherent in the question.
I think that the meanings of the words "evolution" and "creationism" have been so muddied that we aren't even arguing on the same page. "Creationism" as you describe it above is not what I mean, nor intend. Conversely, it seems that my view of "evolution" is broader in scope than yours. If I take your meaning of evolution to be evolution concerned specifically with speciation, then I agree with you.
However, Dawkins and many others have taken the scope of evolution outside the concern of only speciation, and broadened it to the interest of the actual beginning (whether abiogenesis or creation by a directed intelligence).
it's misleading of you to imply that creationism is simply a "non-conventional understanding"
You're not understanding. I'm not implying that Creationism is a "non-conventional understanding". What I called a "non-conventional understanding" is a hybrid of Creationism and evolution. It is unconventional because most feel that the two are diametrically opposed.
You imply that there are only two sides and that both sides are "extremist viewpoints."
No, you misunderstood. What I meant was that the extremes of both viewpoints are extremist. You are correct in asserting that the extremist evolutionists maintain a "religious" belief. It shocked me when I started listening and realized that these "scientists" talked about evolution with much the same reverence as I talked about God. However, there are vast shades of gray in the middle.
There is no science in creationism; it is religious belief.
Actually, if you think of it from the viewpoint that our universe is finite (meaning constrained by time) and that it MUST have had a beginning because of this, then you begin to approach a point where you must admit that the universe was created (don't worry with "created by who", just think if it is possible for our universe to exist without some kind of creation event). Even Stephen Hawking admits this, with the ironic remark "this makes most of my colleagues very uncomfortable". It's been quite a while since I read that, but if I can turn it up, I'll send you the link.
For quite a while, I was unwilling to accept that evolution (in this context I mean speciation) could in fact exist. It didn't jive with what I believed, so I tossed out the science in favor of what I believed. However, I've realized that this is foolishness. It didn't serve me any use to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, I decided that perhaps I wasn't working with all of the knowledge that I needed, so I decided that I had to accept both, and see if there wasn't some way I could reconcile the two apparent disparate views.
In point of fact, if you're not a rabid supporter of either viewpoint, then you can come to a different, non-conventional understanding. Kind of like Galileo and the solar system.
The fault in your statement here is that you're giving equal value to evolution and creationism
Not at all, I maintian that they are actually the same, one cannot exist without the other. Simply because they look diametrically opposed doesn't me they really are. Which, I'll be the first to admit, sounds like absolute insanity, at least on the surface. It's like sayingn 1+1 = 1. In point of fact, it may not be.
The real problem that extreme evolutionists have with creationism is that it is founded in a religious faith, and this is anathema to a scientist (that being blind acceptance of anything without proof). The real problem that the extreme creationists have with evolution is that it's not based on faith (generally, and incorrectly in my opinion, considered to be blind belief in something one cannot begin to understand, but that God said was true), and that is anathema to a fundamentalist Christian creationist.
However, there might just be a way to reconcile both of these viewpoints. If I can convince the evolutionist that there is at lest some amount of support for creationism, then they might be willing to admit the necessity for a creation event. Conversely, if I can convince a creationist that even if all of the science is true, it doesn't disprove the Word of God, then they might be willing to admit the necessity of some form of evolution.
There's a whole lot more to the debate than this, but I can't type all of it out. I gotta work. I look forward to reading what you think.
Well, not really. Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to a strict fundamentalist who has no science background, then yes, it does disprove his breed of creationism. It doesn't, however, disprove Dr. Michael Behe's breed of "creationism".
What it does disprove, though, is that speciation is possible, but that's rather obvious to anyone who looks at the genetic/chromosomal make-up of, say, chimps, gorrillas and humans.
If you're truly interested in this debate, then I would recommend a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. He's a physicist who is also a creationist, but with a rather different take on the whole thing. He maintains that God did create the world in 7 literal days, but that it also took roughly 13.5 Billion years. Has to do with the theory of relativity of time... He's also Jewish, and has an incredible grasp on the Hebrew underlying the English in Genesis, and brings to light several key verses that could have either been translated better, or simply lost something in translation. Great stuff.
As a creationist who also has a degree in genetics and did research under an evolutionary geneticist, I've seen both sides of the spectrum. both sides extremes have their intellectual/theological bigots who aren't willing to budge simply for spites sake. However, those that are willing to at least listen generally can have very unique viewpoints.
How exactly are you going to stop pollution today? Ah, yes, that's right, by stopping INDUSTRY! How could I forget? See, you're not anti-pollution, you're anti-capitolism (ooooooh, what a great evil, huh?).
The Segway obviously doesn't pollute.
Ummmm... Think again. It uses electricity, that means you have to get that electricity from somewhere, so where would that be? Well, since most of the power plants in the world are coal-burning, that means that your electricity is probably coming from a coal-burning power plant. Since coal-burning power plants are more polluting than regular combustion engines, and less effecient, then I figure your precious non-polluting Segway is at least as polluting as a car.
Of course, if you freak-ass greens hadn't stopped nuclear power cold, then you would have a relatively pollution free source of electricity. For now, store the rods, or turn them into bullets and armor, and when we have our space elevator, we'll jetison the whole lot into the sun.
50 years? That's confortably out of your frame of reference, isn't it? "I won't worry, they'll have it solved in 50 years."
Actually, that's what we call forward thinking and a belief in the ingenuity of man. If you could stop screaming "NOOOOOOOOOO, YOUR DESTROYING THE PLANET" and start trying to solve the problem, then perhaps we would have a solution, and sooner than 50 years... But all you can do is obstruct.
Ridiculous.
Actually, I find your argument ridiculous. It makes no sense... but you won't listen long enough to hear why.
I feel certain that whether or not a Republican administration is in power is immaterial. It's been signed into law and there is a "commitee" (or whatever you want to call it, basically a bunch of beaurocrats) in charge of seeing its enforcement. We both know how petty unimportant politocos can be.
Worse, the weight of the hammer that will fall if you're caught out makes OSHA fines look piddling.
I work in the medical field, and we're sweating bullets here over HIPPA. Part of what it says is that any patient info transmitted in any digital format MUST be encrypted to some standard (I think right now 128 bit). It also has some other interesting parts in it of a similar arbritrary nature. It's going to be big time $ to make it all work the way that the gov'ment is mandating.
As much as I hate how I know M$ will ultimately use this, it could be a HUGE boon for the medical industry.
There has to be two standards for "ease of use", at least right now. You are a "power user" (pardon the cheesey phrase, please). You do things like attempt to go a whole day without using the mouse, because you are working for EFFICIENCY in your computing. You're at a level above the "average" joe computer user, at least for another decade probably. Your idea (and mine) of "ease of use" hasn't hit its time yet.
As the people that were born into a generation without readily available computing pass on (as in die) I imagine you'll see the other idea of "ease of use" go away. That idea is "make it so easy it's actually hard sometimes, so obvious its painful, and if you can make it pretty, all the better". IE: Micro$oft's idea of "ease of use". But, why does this idea prevail?
The baby boomers, that's why. Granted, they are a bit more comfortable with computers than say our grandparents, but the upper reaches of them aren't that comfortable. But, why are the baby boomers driving "ease of use", you might ask. M-O-N-E-Y The boomers control a disproportionate amount of the available capital in the U$ (which, by the way, they should). They pay for their idea of "ease of use" to be the dominant idea.
*GASP* Pay for software? SACRELIGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Actually, those of you deluded enough to believe that all software should be free need to pull your heads out of the sand. That magical thing, M-O-N-E-Y, drives software today. It will in the future, too. It makes sense for some things to be "free", like an OS, perhaps. Others, though, don't, like office tools, or specialized software like Electronic Medical Records. I think that the idea of Ransom software sounds good, it catches a good balance between "free" and "money-grubbing". But I digress.
As those born in the mid-to-late 60's come into that wonderful place where THEY control a disproportionate amount of the availble capital in the U$, and especially when the GenXers get there, the idea of "ease of use" will have shifted over to OUR view. Remember that most of the boomers grew up in the 50's, with Beaver Cleaver and all the cotton candy that came with pop culture then. Does anyone else see the similarity between the Cleaver household and Microsoft's version of OS eye candy? As younger generations take over, the view of their formative years will prevail. Those views are much edgier, grittier (I'm a famous musician with all I could ever want, but I'm still not happy... *pull the trigger*), and more dramatic, you'll see "ease of use" take on a whole new concept.
If you look under the special shells folder, there is a link to the music folder. Look at the meta-data view on the bottom right hand side, you'll see "License Description: This content has no restrictions".
We all know that it's coming, here's the first look. How long til we'll see something like "License Description: No access allowed for this user"?
I can see it now. "Does anyone have any reasonable solutions, say, where silicon valley and Hollywood collaborate?"
--Enter borg theme--
"We do! Just to make it strong, we made it out of Palladium -tm." Says the geeky rich guy with funny too-big glasses.
And so, Microsoft came in and saved us all with their level-headed approach to the whole situation.
Get ready...
Actually, they won't get more than a tenth of a cent per CD! Ask the Dixie Chicks. One of the biggest bands in the US today, and they've made virtually nothing from record sales. All the money they've made has come from TOURING and MERCHANDISE. They don't really get much from royalties.
I'm not brainwashed, you are.
Make your music FREE (for personal use)! If you signed, you wouldn't get much for your music anyway, sheer.1 cents on each CD. All of your money will come from merchandising and shows. Tour, tell people to dl your MP3s (they will) and spread them to their friends. Make sure you post when you'll be in an area on your websit.
You'll make it. This is the OTHER thing the labels are afraid of...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not all that, let me tell you. I've not noticed any "sharpening" of my mental acuity, quite the opposite. I feel more distracted and less able to focus on it. Now, give me some good old tried and true stimulants, which mostly kick the brain into super-learning mode, and then we'll talk. Yep, my drug of choice is still Adderall (amphetamine salts).
I don't know whether or not you'd call me an extreme evolutionist
No, I wouldn't call you that. You don't seem to have the knee-jerk reaction I would expect from one.
But, here's something for you to consider. if I could show you a way that a literal interpretation of the creation event in Genesis (as in 6 days) could line up with the age of the universe (roughly 13-15 billion years old), and that the order of creation would match the evolutionary "branching", would you be interested?
With a degree in genetics I would have thought you'd have understood that evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe.
That's a rather terse way to define evolution. If, in fact, evolution is interested in the "Origin of Species" then the beginning (ie, where the first species arose from) is inherent in the question.
I think that the meanings of the words "evolution" and "creationism" have been so muddied that we aren't even arguing on the same page. "Creationism" as you describe it above is not what I mean, nor intend. Conversely, it seems that my view of "evolution" is broader in scope than yours. If I take your meaning of evolution to be evolution concerned specifically with speciation, then I agree with you.
However, Dawkins and many others have taken the scope of evolution outside the concern of only speciation, and broadened it to the interest of the actual beginning (whether abiogenesis or creation by a directed intelligence).
it's misleading of you to imply that creationism is simply a "non-conventional understanding"
You're not understanding. I'm not implying that Creationism is a "non-conventional understanding". What I called a "non-conventional understanding" is a hybrid of Creationism and evolution. It is unconventional because most feel that the two are diametrically opposed.
No, you misunderstood. What I meant was that the extremes of both viewpoints are extremist. You are correct in asserting that the extremist evolutionists maintain a "religious" belief. It shocked me when I started listening and realized that these "scientists" talked about evolution with much the same reverence as I talked about God. However, there are vast shades of gray in the middle.
There is no science in creationism; it is religious belief.
Actually, if you think of it from the viewpoint that our universe is finite (meaning constrained by time) and that it MUST have had a beginning because of this, then you begin to approach a point where you must admit that the universe was created (don't worry with "created by who", just think if it is possible for our universe to exist without some kind of creation event). Even Stephen Hawking admits this, with the ironic remark "this makes most of my colleagues very uncomfortable". It's been quite a while since I read that, but if I can turn it up, I'll send you the link.
For quite a while, I was unwilling to accept that evolution (in this context I mean speciation) could in fact exist. It didn't jive with what I believed, so I tossed out the science in favor of what I believed. However, I've realized that this is foolishness. It didn't serve me any use to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, I decided that perhaps I wasn't working with all of the knowledge that I needed, so I decided that I had to accept both, and see if there wasn't some way I could reconcile the two apparent disparate views.
In point of fact, if you're not a rabid supporter of either viewpoint, then you can come to a different, non-conventional understanding. Kind of like Galileo and the solar system.
The fault in your statement here is that you're giving equal value to evolution and creationism
Not at all, I maintian that they are actually the same, one cannot exist without the other. Simply because they look diametrically opposed doesn't me they really are. Which, I'll be the first to admit, sounds like absolute insanity, at least on the surface. It's like sayingn 1+1 = 1. In point of fact, it may not be.
The real problem that extreme evolutionists have with creationism is that it is founded in a religious faith, and this is anathema to a scientist (that being blind acceptance of anything without proof). The real problem that the extreme creationists have with evolution is that it's not based on faith (generally, and incorrectly in my opinion, considered to be blind belief in something one cannot begin to understand, but that God said was true), and that is anathema to a fundamentalist Christian creationist.
However, there might just be a way to reconcile both of these viewpoints. If I can convince the evolutionist that there is at lest some amount of support for creationism, then they might be willing to admit the necessity for a creation event. Conversely, if I can convince a creationist that even if all of the science is true, it doesn't disprove the Word of God, then they might be willing to admit the necessity of some form of evolution.
There's a whole lot more to the debate than this, but I can't type all of it out. I gotta work. I look forward to reading what you think.
Well, not really. Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to a strict fundamentalist who has no science background, then yes, it does disprove his breed of creationism. It doesn't, however, disprove Dr. Michael Behe's breed of "creationism".
What it does disprove, though, is that speciation is possible, but that's rather obvious to anyone who looks at the genetic/chromosomal make-up of, say, chimps, gorrillas and humans.
If you're truly interested in this debate, then I would recommend a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. He's a physicist who is also a creationist, but with a rather different take on the whole thing. He maintains that God did create the world in 7 literal days, but that it also took roughly 13.5 Billion years. Has to do with the theory of relativity of time... He's also Jewish, and has an incredible grasp on the Hebrew underlying the English in Genesis, and brings to light several key verses that could have either been translated better, or simply lost something in translation. Great stuff.
As a creationist who also has a degree in genetics and did research under an evolutionary geneticist, I've seen both sides of the spectrum. both sides extremes have their intellectual/theological bigots who aren't willing to budge simply for spites sake. However, those that are willing to at least listen generally can have very unique viewpoints.
How exactly are you going to stop pollution today? Ah, yes, that's right, by stopping INDUSTRY! How could I forget? See, you're not anti-pollution, you're anti-capitolism (ooooooh, what a great evil, huh?).
The Segway obviously doesn't pollute.
Ummmm... Think again. It uses electricity, that means you have to get that electricity from somewhere, so where would that be? Well, since most of the power plants in the world are coal-burning, that means that your electricity is probably coming from a coal-burning power plant. Since coal-burning power plants are more polluting than regular combustion engines, and less effecient, then I figure your precious non-polluting Segway is at least as polluting as a car.
Of course, if you freak-ass greens hadn't stopped nuclear power cold, then you would have a relatively pollution free source of electricity. For now, store the rods, or turn them into bullets and armor, and when we have our space elevator, we'll jetison the whole lot into the sun.
50 years? That's confortably out of your frame of reference, isn't it? "I won't worry, they'll have it solved in 50 years."
Actually, that's what we call forward thinking and a belief in the ingenuity of man. If you could stop screaming "NOOOOOOOOOO, YOUR DESTROYING THE PLANET" and start trying to solve the problem, then perhaps we would have a solution, and sooner than 50 years... But all you can do is obstruct.
Ridiculous.
Actually, I find your argument ridiculous. It makes no sense... but you won't listen long enough to hear why.
Worse, the weight of the hammer that will fall if you're caught out makes OSHA fines look piddling.
As much as I hate how I know M$ will ultimately use this, it could be a HUGE boon for the medical industry.
See, even the devil can be useful.
There has to be two standards for "ease of use", at least right now. You are a "power user" (pardon the cheesey phrase, please). You do things like attempt to go a whole day without using the mouse, because you are working for EFFICIENCY in your computing. You're at a level above the "average" joe computer user, at least for another decade probably. Your idea (and mine) of "ease of use" hasn't hit its time yet. As the people that were born into a generation without readily available computing pass on (as in die) I imagine you'll see the other idea of "ease of use" go away. That idea is "make it so easy it's actually hard sometimes, so obvious its painful, and if you can make it pretty, all the better". IE: Micro$oft's idea of "ease of use". But, why does this idea prevail? The baby boomers, that's why. Granted, they are a bit more comfortable with computers than say our grandparents, but the upper reaches of them aren't that comfortable. But, why are the baby boomers driving "ease of use", you might ask. M-O-N-E-Y The boomers control a disproportionate amount of the available capital in the U$ (which, by the way, they should). They pay for their idea of "ease of use" to be the dominant idea. *GASP* Pay for software? SACRELIGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Actually, those of you deluded enough to believe that all software should be free need to pull your heads out of the sand. That magical thing, M-O-N-E-Y, drives software today. It will in the future, too. It makes sense for some things to be "free", like an OS, perhaps. Others, though, don't, like office tools, or specialized software like Electronic Medical Records. I think that the idea of Ransom software sounds good, it catches a good balance between "free" and "money-grubbing". But I digress. As those born in the mid-to-late 60's come into that wonderful place where THEY control a disproportionate amount of the availble capital in the U$, and especially when the GenXers get there, the idea of "ease of use" will have shifted over to OUR view. Remember that most of the boomers grew up in the 50's, with Beaver Cleaver and all the cotton candy that came with pop culture then. Does anyone else see the similarity between the Cleaver household and Microsoft's version of OS eye candy? As younger generations take over, the view of their formative years will prevail. Those views are much edgier, grittier (I'm a famous musician with all I could ever want, but I'm still not happy... *pull the trigger*), and more dramatic, you'll see "ease of use" take on a whole new concept.
If you look under the special shells folder, there is a link to the music folder. Look at the meta-data view on the bottom right hand side, you'll see "License Description: This content has no restrictions". We all know that it's coming, here's the first look. How long til we'll see something like "License Description: No access allowed for this user"?
I can see it now. "Does anyone have any reasonable solutions, say, where silicon valley and Hollywood collaborate?" --Enter borg theme-- "We do! Just to make it strong, we made it out of Palladium -tm." Says the geeky rich guy with funny too-big glasses. And so, Microsoft came in and saved us all with their level-headed approach to the whole situation. Get ready...
Actually, they won't get more than a tenth of a cent per CD! Ask the Dixie Chicks. One of the biggest bands in the US today, and they've made virtually nothing from record sales. All the money they've made has come from TOURING and MERCHANDISE. They don't really get much from royalties. I'm not brainwashed, you are.
Make your music FREE (for personal use)! If you signed, you wouldn't get much for your music anyway, sheer .1 cents on each CD. All of your money will come from merchandising and shows. Tour, tell people to dl your MP3s (they will) and spread them to their friends. Make sure you post when you'll be in an area on your websit.
You'll make it. This is the OTHER thing the labels are afraid of...