Its misleading in the fact that it looks like the author of the post is recalling an event that happened to him.
Not unless you are a little dim. The first words of the post are:
Keiko Ogura was eight years old when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. She still lives in the city.
Clearly, the poster is quoting another story, rather than recounting their own experience. In fact, the story is a cut and paste of a story on the BBC website. This I discovered from 2 seconds of Googling. That you did not take this step, but instead chose to descend into histrionics about the validity of the story, suggests that you may be simply trying to discredit the story. Why that is, I don't know, but it reflects poorly on you.
Next time you make a fool of yourself in public, try having the cojones to post other than as an AC. You gutless sack of fetid shit.
That is my point. To criticize someone who posts the story of a victim of Hiroshima as 'anti-American' is just as bat-shit crazy as to criticize an account of the holocaust as 'anti-German'.
I think the notion of a general attitude applied to a group of people is bigotry.
So referring to the Nazis as genocidal is bigotry? Riiight.
You know, this little exchange got me thinking. Usually, those who criticize my sig tend to be a little racist themselves. But you seem to be OK. Or, at least, that's how I felt until I visited your blog and found this gem:
Sometimes I wish I was a member of some sort of "historically underutilized" or "disadvantaged" group. It would have been a hell of a lot easier to get my degree.... Maybe if I weren't a white guy from a middle class upbringing, I would have had somebody out there looking out for me.
Boy, do you have a racist chip on your shoulder. Do you really think life would be easier for you if you were coloured? You think nowadays black people have an easy ride? And you think that you've had it tough because they've been given "your job"?
If this is your perception, I invite you -- when or if you eventually manage to get a proper job -- to count up how many dark-skinned people you work with. See how many have taken your job, you bigoted arsehole.
How's the aeronautical engineering program at Oxford?
I've no idea. But their physics programme, plus the astronomy PhD programme at University of London, is a great start to a career in space astrophysics -- culminating with NASA cutting me my paycheck. Whereas your chosen career, in designing machines to efficiently kill dark-skinned foreigners (think Iraq, Afghanistan), appears from your blog to have stalled.
Well, not quite. Being racist is one thing. But standing by while racist remarks are frequently made on/., and not saying anything because you feel gipped about outsourcing too --- is that so different?
I'm rather disgusted to the laissez-faire attitude to low-level racism, that appears to be the norm on/. -- hence my sig. However, I can't seem to write a single post nowadays without being criticized by people such as yourself. Honestly, I think for a bunch of bigots, you're rather over-sensitive.
As a gesture of goodwill, I've changed my sig to something more personal and self-aggrandizing. I'm sure you'll like it.
Does every shareholder have to serve a period of time in porportion to their percentage of ownership?
Well, the board of directors would be a start. Or even the CEO. I note in the particular case of Bhopal, that India (which has an extradition agreement with the USA) convicted the chairman (Warren Anderson) of Union Carbide, but the USA refused to extradite him. I guess it was only Indians who got gassed, so clearly he shouldn't be held culpable for what happened on his watch. I mean, it's not as though his large salary was to reflect the fact that he had responsibility over the company.
So the dating service, if incorporated, has the same rights as anyone.
And far fewer of the responsibilities. Corporations regularly get away with acts (e.g., Union Carbide's Bhopal leak) that would see an individual locked up for life.
Yes, thank you. I will slightly revise my statement. Your link states: "This review cited only four examples of speciation events." Four data points does not constitute the basis for a Theory.
But you claimed that speciation has NEVER been recorded in a scientific experiment before. Which, as I have just demonstrated, is wrong. Since you now want to move the goalposts, it's clear that you are unable to stick to the rules of a reasonable argument. Hence, I have no more interest in this debate.
I can't. That's why your hypothesis cannot be scrutinized via science -- exactly the point I was making. Science can only evaluate those claims that can, potentially, be falsified by some yet-to-be-carried-out experiment. Your claim about creation (which is a type of omphalism) falls outside this category, as does ID.
I suggest you read some of the works by Karl Popper, if you wish to understand this issue further.
Sure -- if, for instance, remains of higher-order taxa (e.g., human bones) were found in sediment beds associated with the Cambrian explosion. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
I agree with everything you say, but you have missed the point of my original challenge. Which is this: in the face of the myriad deficiencies of life in the world today (e.g., the human back problems you highlight), ID can always sidestep any challenges regarding the competence of the 'designer' by claiming that we cannot presume to know the intent of God in designing organisms this way. All ID says is 'God did it' -- an utterly worthless assertion, that has no ability whatsoever to shine any light on the world around us.
When somebody makes an assertion, it is not the responsibility of the person who is being skeptical to disprove anything. I don't have to prove anything with a "not" in it.
You have misunderstood my post. I was asking that proponents of ID demonstrate how ID can be falsified. As I'm sure you know, falsifiability is one of the general prerequisites of any scientific hypothesis.
I'm not claiming that supporters of evolution must falsify ID; I'm asserting that supporters of ID must show how their own claims might be falsified by evidence from the natural world. If they cannot furnish a hypothetical situation in which there claims can conclusively be falsified, then their claims cannot be evaluated within a scientific framework.
Also, their offspring are almost always infertile.
Well, that's not quite true. In the case of Ligers, sure, males are almost always infertile, but females are often fertile. This of course underlines the fact that the concept of 'species' is often rather poorly defined.
With regards to the geography issue, is there no overlap between the ranges of Bengal tigers and Asiatic lions? Of course, even if there were, there's no way that interbreeding would occur naturally (my original point). But I'm thinking that there is some kind of overlap.
It is statistically rigorous to regard odds of 10^50 against as "impossible" and the statistical likelihood of abiogenesis having ever happened anywhere in the universe as we know it, ever, are at least several times as many orders of magnitude less possible than that.
Care to provide a citation for your figures? Or would you rather continue to pull them out from your arse?
Simply show that all existing structure is practically achievable through random chance, and you're done.
But that is a strawman in itself. Natural selection is not random at all; it specifically relies on selection of those genetic traits that are ultimately favourable toward producing more offspring.
While the mixing of genes during sexual reproduction, and DNA changes due to mutations, are both random processes, they only furnish the mechanism for exploring different directions with respect to genetic configurations. Natural selection then 'chooses' which direction a species is going to take, in a decidedly non-random manner.
The people that parade evolution around as the "real origin of life" are nothing more than anti-creationists with a near-religious devotion to their Big-Bang god.
Once you learn what the word 'abiogenesis' means, you'll be able to embarass yourself less on slashdot. Until then, bring it on, numbskull.
On the opposite side of the coin, there are tigers and lions. These two species are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring (ligers or tigons). However, in the wild, their natural behaviour induces them not to interbreed; hence, they are viewed as separate species. That their fur markings are very different, demonstrates the genetic drift that has already arisen due to this lack of interbreeding.
IMO, the true scientist witholds judgement until the experiments have been done and the data is in front of them.
OK, bring on the experiments. Describe an experiment that can be used to disprove design in a given organism. If you are unable to do this, then -- at the most fundamental level -- ID is not amenable to the scientific method, and is not worth any further scientific enquiry.
Slashdot Mirror
Its misleading in the fact that it looks like the author of the post is recalling an event that happened to him.
Not unless you are a little dim. The first words of the post are:
Clearly, the poster is quoting another story, rather than recounting their own experience. In fact, the story is a cut and paste of a story on the BBC website. This I discovered from 2 seconds of Googling. That you did not take this step, but instead chose to descend into histrionics about the validity of the story, suggests that you may be simply trying to discredit the story. Why that is, I don't know, but it reflects poorly on you.
Next time you make a fool of yourself in public, try having the cojones to post other than as an AC. You gutless sack of fetid shit.
That is my point. To criticize someone who posts the story of a victim of Hiroshima as 'anti-American' is just as bat-shit crazy as to criticize an account of the holocaust as 'anti-German'.
"Thanks for saving many hundreds of thousands of lives that would've been lost had the war the Japanese started with a surprise attack continued."
In fact, according to most of the Christian Right in the USA, including the President, God will say 'You unbeliever, off to hell with you!'
Just to be anti-american for the sake of it?
So, it is anti-German to post stories about the Holocaust? Stupid cunt.
You're getting good at this projection thing. Do you need a hug?
Nah, my large NASA paycheck is adequate compensation for the empty loneliness.
Do you think that makes you somehow superior to me?
I don't know where you got that idea from. Maybe it is your own insecurities showing through. Whatever.
I think the notion of a general attitude applied to a group of people is bigotry.
So referring to the Nazis as genocidal is bigotry? Riiight.
You know, this little exchange got me thinking. Usually, those who criticize my sig tend to be a little racist themselves. But you seem to be OK. Or, at least, that's how I felt until I visited your blog and found this gem:
Boy, do you have a racist chip on your shoulder. Do you really think life would be easier for you if you were coloured? You think nowadays black people have an easy ride? And you think that you've had it tough because they've been given "your job"?
If this is your perception, I invite you -- when or if you eventually manage to get a proper job -- to count up how many dark-skinned people you work with. See how many have taken your job, you bigoted arsehole.How's the aeronautical engineering program at Oxford?
I've no idea. But their physics programme, plus the astronomy PhD programme at University of London, is a great start to a career in space astrophysics -- culminating with NASA cutting me my paycheck. Whereas your chosen career, in designing machines to efficiently kill dark-skinned foreigners (think Iraq, Afghanistan), appears from your blog to have stalled.
You called everybody on Slashdot a bigot.
No, I criticized the general attitude of Slashdot toward racism. I nowhere claimed all Slashdot readers racists. Your whole argument is a strawman.
Where's your degree from?
Oxford. And where is yours from (I'm referring to undergraduate; we'll get on to higher degrees in a moment)?
Well, not quite. Being racist is one thing. But standing by while racist remarks are frequently made on /., and not saying anything because you feel gipped about outsourcing too --- is that so different?
I'm rather disgusted to the laissez-faire attitude to low-level racism, that appears to be the norm on /. -- hence my sig. However, I can't seem to write a single post nowadays without being criticized by people such as yourself. Honestly, I think for a bunch of bigots, you're rather over-sensitive.
As a gesture of goodwill, I've changed my sig to something more personal and self-aggrandizing. I'm sure you'll like it.
Yes, you're right, the two are wholly unrelated.
Does every shareholder have to serve a period of time in porportion to their percentage of ownership?
Well, the board of directors would be a start. Or even the CEO. I note in the particular case of Bhopal, that India (which has an extradition agreement with the USA) convicted the chairman (Warren Anderson) of Union Carbide, but the USA refused to extradite him. I guess it was only Indians who got gassed, so clearly he shouldn't be held culpable for what happened on his watch. I mean, it's not as though his large salary was to reflect the fact that he had responsibility over the company.
So the dating service, if incorporated, has the same rights as anyone.
And far fewer of the responsibilities. Corporations regularly get away with acts (e.g., Union Carbide's Bhopal leak) that would see an individual locked up for life.
No, 2005-1984 = 10. You do see that, don't you, citizen? How many fingers am I holding up?
Yes, thank you. I will slightly revise my statement. Your link states: "This review cited only four examples of speciation events." Four data points does not constitute the basis for a Theory.
But you claimed that speciation has NEVER been recorded in a scientific experiment before. Which, as I have just demonstrated, is wrong. Since you now want to move the goalposts, it's clear that you are unable to stick to the rules of a reasonable argument. Hence, I have no more interest in this debate.
It has NEVER been recorded in a scientific experiment before.
You are demonstrably wrong; see here.
But somehow, this slight omission never kept anyone from asserting that Darwin's hypothesis of evolution is somehow unscientific.
Care to revise your opinion now you've been shown to be wrong?
Now, go disprove this.
I can't. That's why your hypothesis cannot be scrutinized via science -- exactly the point I was making. Science can only evaluate those claims that can, potentially, be falsified by some yet-to-be-carried-out experiment. Your claim about creation (which is a type of omphalism) falls outside this category, as does ID.
I suggest you read some of the works by Karl Popper, if you wish to understand this issue further.
Sure -- if, for instance, remains of higher-order taxa (e.g., human bones) were found in sediment beds associated with the Cambrian explosion. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
I agree with everything you say, but you have missed the point of my original challenge. Which is this: in the face of the myriad deficiencies of life in the world today (e.g., the human back problems you highlight), ID can always sidestep any challenges regarding the competence of the 'designer' by claiming that we cannot presume to know the intent of God in designing organisms this way. All ID says is 'God did it' -- an utterly worthless assertion, that has no ability whatsoever to shine any light on the world around us.
When somebody makes an assertion, it is not the responsibility of the person who is being skeptical to disprove anything. I don't have to prove anything with a "not" in it.
You have misunderstood my post. I was asking that proponents of ID demonstrate how ID can be falsified. As I'm sure you know, falsifiability is one of the general prerequisites of any scientific hypothesis.
I'm not claiming that supporters of evolution must falsify ID; I'm asserting that supporters of ID must show how their own claims might be falsified by evidence from the natural world. If they cannot furnish a hypothetical situation in which there claims can conclusively be falsified, then their claims cannot be evaluated within a scientific framework.
Also, their offspring are almost always infertile.
Well, that's not quite true. In the case of Ligers, sure, males are almost always infertile, but females are often fertile. This of course underlines the fact that the concept of 'species' is often rather poorly defined.
With regards to the geography issue, is there no overlap between the ranges of Bengal tigers and Asiatic lions? Of course, even if there were, there's no way that interbreeding would occur naturally (my original point). But I'm thinking that there is some kind of overlap.
It is statistically rigorous to regard odds of 10^50 against as "impossible" and the statistical likelihood of abiogenesis having ever happened anywhere in the universe as we know it, ever, are at least several times as many orders of magnitude less possible than that.
Care to provide a citation for your figures? Or would you rather continue to pull them out from your arse?
Simply show that all existing structure is practically achievable through random chance, and you're done.
But that is a strawman in itself. Natural selection is not random at all; it specifically relies on selection of those genetic traits that are ultimately favourable toward producing more offspring.
While the mixing of genes during sexual reproduction, and DNA changes due to mutations, are both random processes, they only furnish the mechanism for exploring different directions with respect to genetic configurations. Natural selection then 'chooses' which direction a species is going to take, in a decidedly non-random manner.
The people that parade evolution around as the "real origin of life" are nothing more than anti-creationists with a near-religious devotion to their Big-Bang god.
Once you learn what the word 'abiogenesis' means, you'll be able to embarass yourself less on slashdot. Until then, bring it on, numbskull.
On the opposite side of the coin, there are tigers and lions. These two species are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring (ligers or tigons). However, in the wild, their natural behaviour induces them not to interbreed; hence, they are viewed as separate species. That their fur markings are very different, demonstrates the genetic drift that has already arisen due to this lack of interbreeding.
IMO, the true scientist witholds judgement until the experiments have been done and the data is in front of them.
OK, bring on the experiments. Describe an experiment that can be used to disprove design in a given organism. If you are unable to do this, then -- at the most fundamental level -- ID is not amenable to the scientific method, and is not worth any further scientific enquiry.
So, name the experiment. Go on, I'm all ears.