"Yes, they often use terribly flawed arguments and always compare the scientific establishment to the Church during the time of Galileo, which is even more annoying, but there are much worse things to do, and be. Anger doesn't help anything, though."
They also try to invade science cirricula with their religious teachings to the detriment of logical thinking and FACT. I am, and will ever continue to be, angry at someone who want to indoctrinate MY progeny with their beliefs with MY dollar.
No, only part of it. If you'll recall what history you apparently didn't pay much attention to, there was a huge war here, on goal of which was the ending of said atrocity. Like many around the planet, you apparently live in a time way before your life. Things have changed since then, and yes Virginia, ending atrocities and making things better do count for something.
"I thought in order for something to be concidered a felony someone had to intentionaly hurt someone else."
Theft of anything over $50 is a felony in Missouri, other amounts elsewhere. That lack of understanding of felony on your part makes the rest of your post's logic suspect.
Nice spouting. Got any statistics, or is this just your opinion? My perspective, living in farm country, is that the farmers use less than the city folks. Farmers are even required to take classes in the use thereof. City folks don't, and as a result use a can of fertilizer or pesticide on their little bitty front yard. Cities are also the largest source of water waste because of old and disintegrating delivery systems. For instance, it's calculated that Springfield Mo. loses as much as 40% to leakage. City folk, heal thyselves before looking to the people who feed your asses.
I think you both missed the point. Drawing by hand is easier and quicker than on a computer. Provided you're taught such, that is. I do both. My sketches are faster, the generation of computer-based sketches are slower. Yes, I Paint, my example is first-hand. Take that lap-top of yours out into the field and compose a "real deal (real drawing)". I, personally, don't like being restricted to an office for my work. The world is simply too large.
"Anybody can learn a technical skill like drawing."
What, exactly, do you define as "drawing"? Being able to produce a good drawing, whether by shading, stippling, hatching or other techniques is not something that anybody can learn. You must be able to translate your visual (real or abstract) image into locomotor. Some people cannot do that and never shall.
It's not. Calculators do. Haven't you noticed that younger people can do hardly any math in their heads? Not important? What if you don't have a calculator. Like the comedian Sinbad once related when he was standing in line at a fast-food and the power went out, the kid behind the counter couldn't make change for a five when the bill was $4.95. Sad shit.
I'm sorry, but that didn't make sense. Picasso drew, was he supressing the abstract model? Or, perhaps you believe "drawing" is only about reproducing what your eyes see? Your post appears to be contradictory. Maybe you could elucidate.
"Apparently teenaged boys don't need to practice drawing their nudes when they can just download them off the web."
Teen age boys are already set or not in their artistic skills. Don't project a geek outlook onto the topic, smaller boys practicing their art usually draw planes and ships.
Once more, evolution is a solid, emperical fact. The various mechanisms by which it takes place are hypothesis. The word theory as you just used it is not a scientific word, but a conversational one. For instance, the theory of gravity is the current database of knowledge on the subject, not some idea that it does or does not exist. Same for evolution. It exists.
Not even close. Evolution is a fact. The various hypothesis as to how it functions are layed out in a format that can be examined against the evidence available as to their validity. Furthermore they can make projections, like say, if humans create new carbon-based chemicals, the biota will adjust in time to consume them. Guess what? Nylon ingesting bacteria.
... there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution you could drive a truck through
Mighta helped if you offered one, but I'll make do. Evolution basically states that organisms will change over time. We have literally tons of fossil evidence which explicitly supports this idea. If you have further thoughts, you might at least make them less vague.
He freely admitted that evolution could not explain complex organs like the eye.
Why, oh why do creationists keep trotting out lies like this? Not only did he not say that (provide complete context, not quote snippets), we currently have on this planet various life forms which exhibit the states of the eye's evolution. In fact, we have various life forms which show that the eye is not only capable of being evolved, it is capable of being evolved in a number of ways.
My point here is NOT to advocate ID, or the dismissal of Darwinist theory.
Uh, bullshit. If that were so, you wouldn't have made the false claim about the lack of evidence, for instance.
When you continue to insist you are right about something you can't prove, what you have is not a theory anymore - it's a religion.
Excellent, you've just described ID. Since there is emperical evidence for evolution, arguments against its very existence reek of a religious point of view that holds a book written thousands of years ago as being more correct than one's own eyes.
I personally believe that the answer to this is somewhere in the middle.
Just for your edification, there is no middle ground between goddunnit and the world works with its own mechanisms. Not in any manner that can be examined at least. And that is the fundamental deciet of the ID'rs, that the "theory" of ID can be examined. A noteworthy point is that they are incapable of coming up with a manner with which it can.
But it's just a theory - I could be wrong.
Much like ID, not it in a scientific sense. You are wrong because of your refusal to examine the evidence and frame a logically sound, yet falsifiable hypothesis. No more.
1) ID does not explain a damn thing. They only take the stance that evolution be explained, not their claims. Ask away; all you'll get from them are evasions, fabrications, and references to long-rebuked psuedo-science.
2) Not even people who do go to church and still have a semi-scientific literate brain can decipher and support the vague claims of ID'rs.
3) Biology can explain the complexity of life and does it every day. Turn on any science channel and actually watch the biology at work.
Those who believe ID are nothing more than a group of self-ignorant fools.
Uh, it's normally off topic, but I gotta respond to that. I've been playing around in SCA for almost thirty years. Believe me, duck tape wrapped rattan holds not a candle to the real thing. I know, because I've worked with stell weapons for over forty. SCA rules forbid using them, so you ain't gettin' training in actual combat arts there. Both are great and hysterical excercise.
Take hammer. Smash his display device. Engage in discussion of why.
If smashing device does not yield any response (ie: subject continues to play game, perhaps by closing eyes and "visualizing" himself as his character), hit his head with same hammer. Take care to not do as much damage as you did to the display device. Then engage in physical discussion of why.
Actual research backs up the damaged recieved from generated by smoke and excessive noise. It's called empirical evidence. This guy has none. In fact, the evidence works against him.
While an instructor should be required to present the material in a reasonable manner, coherant and all, people in their late teens and twenties should have learned to learned by that age. So requiring an instructor to teach a college level course in all four "ways" or whatever is too much. Only one fourth of the material would get covered.
"...doctor's office with a few nurses, a video setup, and some nice Philippine doctors on the other end"
Because nurses aren't qualified to examine the patients physical body, much less take samples?
"Same with teachers, as long as there's someone in the room to make sure people behave."
Yes, same with teachers. Interaction with students is important and someone with a differing cultural base can't understand them. Hell, it's hard enough for we that live with them. Or perhaps you've bought into that other myth that anyone can teach, only if they're provided a cirriculum?
Slashdot Mirror
"...who's the better player, the guy who picks up each and every ball and drops it in the pocket? Or the guy who sinks the whole table in one shot."
Hard to tell. The first guy's not even playing pool.
Then again, it's a good analogy. The Creationists aren't even studying science.
"Yes, they often use terribly flawed arguments and always compare the scientific establishment to the Church during the time of Galileo, which is even more annoying, but there are much worse things to do, and be. Anger doesn't help anything, though."
They also try to invade science cirricula with their religious teachings to the detriment of logical thinking and FACT. I am, and will ever continue to be, angry at someone who want to indoctrinate MY progeny with their beliefs with MY dollar.
No, only part of it. If you'll recall what history you apparently didn't pay much attention to, there was a huge war here, on goal of which was the ending of said atrocity. Like many around the planet, you apparently live in a time way before your life. Things have changed since then, and yes Virginia, ending atrocities and making things better do count for something.
"I thought in order for something to be concidered a felony someone had to intentionaly hurt someone else."
Theft of anything over $50 is a felony in Missouri, other amounts elsewhere. That lack of understanding of felony on your part makes the rest of your post's logic suspect.
And your attempt at self-aggrandizement would be more compelling if you weren't pedantic about the spelling of one word.
Nice spouting. Got any statistics, or is this just your opinion? My perspective, living in farm country, is that the farmers use less than the city folks. Farmers are even required to take classes in the use thereof. City folks don't, and as a result use a can of fertilizer or pesticide on their little bitty front yard. Cities are also the largest source of water waste because of old and disintegrating delivery systems. For instance, it's calculated that Springfield Mo. loses as much as 40% to leakage. City folk, heal thyselves before looking to the people who feed your asses.
Please name one.
Please, refrain from the piece-of-crap Nazi analogy. It's demonstrably false anyway, doubting you were in the camps. Re-read your sentence.
I think you both missed the point. Drawing by hand is easier and quicker than on a computer. Provided you're taught such, that is. I do both. My sketches are faster, the generation of computer-based sketches are slower. Yes, I Paint, my example is first-hand. Take that lap-top of yours out into the field and compose a "real deal (real drawing)". I, personally, don't like being restricted to an office for my work. The world is simply too large.
"Anybody can learn a technical skill like drawing."
What, exactly, do you define as "drawing"? Being able to produce a good drawing, whether by shading, stippling, hatching or other techniques is not something that anybody can learn. You must be able to translate your visual (real or abstract) image into locomotor. Some people cannot do that and never shall.
It's not. Calculators do. Haven't you noticed that younger people can do hardly any math in their heads? Not important? What if you don't have a calculator. Like the comedian Sinbad once related when he was standing in line at a fast-food and the power went out, the kid behind the counter couldn't make change for a five when the bill was $4.95. Sad shit.
Play the extras disk you get with any of their movies.
I'm sorry, but that didn't make sense. Picasso drew, was he supressing the abstract model? Or, perhaps you believe "drawing" is only about reproducing what your eyes see? Your post appears to be contradictory. Maybe you could elucidate.
It's just a new medium that offers possibilities that paper drawing can't, as well as limitations that paper drawing doesn't have.
You just answered the basic question. If you're going to generate computer art, you're hamstrung in your conceptualization if you can't friggin' draw.
"Apparently teenaged boys don't need to practice drawing their nudes when they can just download them off the web."
Teen age boys are already set or not in their artistic skills. Don't project a geek outlook onto the topic, smaller boys practicing their art usually draw planes and ships.
Once more, evolution is a solid, emperical fact. The various mechanisms by which it takes place are hypothesis. The word theory as you just used it is not a scientific word, but a conversational one. For instance, the theory of gravity is the current database of knowledge on the subject, not some idea that it does or does not exist. Same for evolution. It exists.
Point by point, oh foolishly self-ignorant one:
... as evolution is.
... there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution you could drive a truck through
Intelligent design, when
Not even close. Evolution is a fact. The various hypothesis as to how it functions are layed out in a format that can be examined against the evidence available as to their validity. Furthermore they can make projections, like say, if humans create new carbon-based chemicals, the biota will adjust in time to consume them. Guess what? Nylon ingesting bacteria.
Mighta helped if you offered one, but I'll make do. Evolution basically states that organisms will change over time. We have literally tons of fossil evidence which explicitly supports this idea. If you have further thoughts, you might at least make them less vague.
He freely admitted that evolution could not explain complex organs like the eye.
Why, oh why do creationists keep trotting out lies like this? Not only did he not say that (provide complete context, not quote snippets), we currently have on this planet various life forms which exhibit the states of the eye's evolution. In fact, we have various life forms which show that the eye is not only capable of being evolved, it is capable of being evolved in a number of ways.
My point here is NOT to advocate ID, or the dismissal of Darwinist theory.
Uh, bullshit. If that were so, you wouldn't have made the false claim about the lack of evidence, for instance.
When you continue to insist you are right about something you can't prove, what you have is not a theory anymore - it's a religion.
Excellent, you've just described ID. Since there is emperical evidence for evolution, arguments against its very existence reek of a religious point of view that holds a book written thousands of years ago as being more correct than one's own eyes.
I personally believe that the answer to this is somewhere in the middle.
Just for your edification, there is no middle ground between goddunnit and the world works with its own mechanisms. Not in any manner that can be examined at least. And that is the fundamental deciet of the ID'rs, that the "theory" of ID can be examined. A noteworthy point is that they are incapable of coming up with a manner with which it can.
But it's just a theory - I could be wrong.
Much like ID, not it in a scientific sense. You are wrong because of your refusal to examine the evidence and frame a logically sound, yet falsifiable hypothesis. No more.
You do understand those who rejected the grant are in all probability unelected folks and probably went to college?
Untrue on several counts.
1) ID does not explain a damn thing. They only take the stance that evolution be explained, not their claims. Ask away; all you'll get from them are evasions, fabrications, and references to long-rebuked psuedo-science.
2) Not even people who do go to church and still have a semi-scientific literate brain can decipher and support the vague claims of ID'rs.
3) Biology can explain the complexity of life and does it every day. Turn on any science channel and actually watch the biology at work.
Those who believe ID are nothing more than a group of self-ignorant fools.
Uh, it's normally off topic, but I gotta respond to that. I've been playing around in SCA for almost thirty years. Believe me, duck tape wrapped rattan holds not a candle to the real thing. I know, because I've worked with stell weapons for over forty. SCA rules forbid using them, so you ain't gettin' training in actual combat arts there. Both are great and hysterical excercise.
Take hammer. Smash his display device. Engage in discussion of why.
If smashing device does not yield any response (ie: subject continues to play game, perhaps by closing eyes and "visualizing" himself as his character), hit his head with same hammer. Take care to not do as much damage as you did to the display device. Then engage in physical discussion of why.
At least he'll be involved in a real struggle.
"Alcohol... Well it can ruin people, but unless you drive drunk all the time its not going to kill you like meth, crack, or heroine ..."
W.C.Fields, my step-father, several news-worthy frat kids; to name some who have died as direct causes of ingesting alcohol.
Actual research backs up the damaged recieved from generated by smoke and excessive noise. It's called empirical evidence. This guy has none. In fact, the evidence works against him.
Simply rephrasing a sentence is meaningless.
While an instructor should be required to present the material in a reasonable manner, coherant and all, people in their late teens and twenties should have learned to learned by that age. So requiring an instructor to teach a college level course in all four "ways" or whatever is too much. Only one fourth of the material would get covered.
"...doctor's office with a few nurses, a video setup, and some nice Philippine doctors on the other end"
Because nurses aren't qualified to examine the patients physical body, much less take samples?
"Same with teachers, as long as there's someone in the room to make sure people behave."
Yes, same with teachers. Interaction with students is important and someone with a differing cultural base can't understand them. Hell, it's hard enough for we that live with them. Or perhaps you've bought into that other myth that anyone can teach, only if they're provided a cirriculum?