I'm not saying he deserved a beating, not at all. I was talking about the other bit. When you hold a professional position and act unprofessionally (remember, he was communicating with a school organization), there are consequences.
Also, there's no reason to assume "fundies" are idiots. They may be misguided, wrong, or just of a different opinion than you, but that doesn't make them idiots.
I've met some brilliant preachers, and I recognize that even though I don't believe in their Magic Man In The Sky (tm)
I applaud the guy for having the courage to recognize ID for what it is, a (weak) philosophical argument, not science. But as head of a religious studies department, attacking a given faith is just unprofessional.
I'm an atheist, but I don't go pissing on church doors. That's (figuratively) what this guy did, and screwed up his career in doing so.
At this point, it's fairly clear that you are either massively misinformed or a troll. I'm not gonna contine a discussion with an AC who won't do his homework, sorry.
OK, 2 simple items 1) The 2nd law applies to closed systems... it does not apply to the earth 2) Watches are made of relatively large inanimate objects that don't have any inherent interaction. Life is made up of extremely small particles which DO (primarily chemical and electrical). Your analogy is flawed, and this interaction on the tiny scale is what makes evolved life possible.
Since you were unaware of these 2 basic tenet, I would 'ignorance' was appropriate.
Now, seriously... go check out that book and you may find your worldview challenged:)
Unfortunately, for every adherant to religion X, there is another one saying the first guy "doesn't understand". This is what happens when fantasy and opinion get confused for objective reality.
This is something of a false premise... why CAN'T we observe, test and falsify these things? Ok, the really old (microbial) life didn't fossilize too well, but we've got 2 billion years of decent records and it all supports evolution. We have a mechanism, evidence, and sufficient time... so what's the problem?
Here's why we teach "materialist philosophy": It works. Regardless of faith in supernatural beings, gas still makes your car go. Even if you disbelieve in petroleum, the engine will run. As they say, 'reality' is what is left even when you stop believing.
It is not practical to explore all possibilities. It's POSSIBLE that an alien in another galaxy makes my engine run, or Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... or chemical reactions. Since the latter seems to work remarkably well, the burden is on proponents of other claims to provide evidence.
Scientists content that there is nothing outside nature. This is because we have not experienced anything that is not explainable within our 'natural' outlook. There are things we don't understand very well, sure, but nothing entirely outside the rules.
Of course, it IS possible the God (or aliens, or the FSM) has rigged the universe to appear 'natural'. I can't see worshipping such a vindictive creator:)
Here's the thing... we're not talking about opinions. You and I can disagree about sports teams, and as long we we're polite, no harm done.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There is no evidence for creationism, and teaching kids some half-assed "philosophy" (which, incidently, is demonstrably wrong) like "irreproducible complexity" or ID is doing them a disservice.
If I told you that my car ran on air, does this 'opinion' carry any weight? Even if I REAAAALLY want it to be true? No, and neither does the stone-age concept of creationism people want to foist on the youth of this country.
To be fair, I may be wrong and creationism may be right. However, since this would pretty much overturn biology, medicine, chemistry and geology, the burden of proof is on the side of the creationists.
I'm an atheist, but I don't care if you talk to Jesus, God, whomever. That's your business and, hey, you might be right. But with respect to the actual, physical world we live in (aka The Universe), we should really stick those things that have some shred of evidence... especially when educating children.
Yes. Yes I do. The very fact that you can casually refer to ancient Greece and Rome and be understood actually says a lot about HOW great they were, and that they have been considered so for quite a long time.
Heh, I did much the same thing, except I added an out-of-reach TV that kept the sim awake. Eventually he went nuts (the thought bubble cycled wildly) and he died.
Also fun is sending an inept sim to use a BBQ, pausing the game and adding a wall of bushes around them both. It's just a matter of time before it's a Simferno!
Yeah, but the dateline (and dead tree version, most likely) was 3 days ago. It's not a conspiracy, the editor just tried to yank the dupe before too many people bitched.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
Reverence wasn't what I expect. For that matter, there are lots of courses in college that exist specifically to question a subject.
The mistake was not the class, it was sending insulting email in a professional context, that's all.
I'm not saying he deserved a beating, not at all. I was talking about the other bit. When you hold a professional position and act unprofessionally (remember, he was communicating with a school organization), there are consequences.
Also, there's no reason to assume "fundies" are idiots. They may be misguided, wrong, or just of a different opinion than you, but that doesn't make them idiots.
I've met some brilliant preachers, and I recognize that even though I don't believe in their Magic Man In The Sky (tm)
No no... it's "fundamental", not "extreme". One is good, one is bad... right?
I applaud the guy for having the courage to recognize ID for what it is, a (weak) philosophical argument, not science. But as head of a religious studies department, attacking a given faith is just unprofessional.
I'm an atheist, but I don't go pissing on church doors. That's (figuratively) what this guy did, and screwed up his career in doing so.
it applies to the universe as a whole.
At this point, it's fairly clear that you are either massively misinformed or a troll. I'm not gonna contine a discussion with an AC who won't do his homework, sorry.
OK, 2 simple items
:)
1) The 2nd law applies to closed systems... it does not apply to the earth
2) Watches are made of relatively large inanimate objects that don't have any inherent interaction. Life is made up of extremely small particles which DO (primarily chemical and electrical). Your analogy is flawed, and this interaction on the tiny scale is what makes evolved life possible.
Since you were unaware of these 2 basic tenet, I would 'ignorance' was appropriate.
Now, seriously... go check out that book and you may find your worldview challenged
Poor ignorant AC. Go read "The Blind Watchmaker", or even a physics book before trotting out these old (fallacious) arguments.
THAT I'll agree with you on... science needs to be taught as a method, not just a collection of facts. Sadly, it rarely is before college anymore.
I know where you're going... but I don't know that I buy that the "word of god" should need a scholar to interpret, ya know?
Unfortunately, for every adherant to religion X, there is another one saying the first guy "doesn't understand". This is what happens when fantasy and opinion get confused for objective reality.
This is something of a false premise... why CAN'T we observe, test and falsify these things? Ok, the really old (microbial) life didn't fossilize too well, but we've got 2 billion years of decent records and it all supports evolution. We have a mechanism, evidence, and sufficient time... so what's the problem?
:)
Here's why we teach "materialist philosophy": It works. Regardless of faith in supernatural beings, gas still makes your car go. Even if you disbelieve in petroleum, the engine will run. As they say, 'reality' is what is left even when you stop believing.
It is not practical to explore all possibilities. It's POSSIBLE that an alien in another galaxy makes my engine run, or Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... or chemical reactions. Since the latter seems to work remarkably well, the burden is on proponents of other claims to provide evidence.
Scientists content that there is nothing outside nature. This is because we have not experienced anything that is not explainable within our 'natural' outlook. There are things we don't understand very well, sure, but nothing entirely outside the rules.
Of course, it IS possible the God (or aliens, or the FSM) has rigged the universe to appear 'natural'. I can't see worshipping such a vindictive creator
Here's the thing... we're not talking about opinions. You and I can disagree about sports teams, and as long we we're polite, no harm done.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There is no evidence for creationism, and teaching kids some half-assed "philosophy" (which, incidently, is demonstrably wrong) like "irreproducible complexity" or ID is doing them a disservice.
If I told you that my car ran on air, does this 'opinion' carry any weight? Even if I REAAAALLY want it to be true? No, and neither does the stone-age concept of creationism people want to foist on the youth of this country.
To be fair, I may be wrong and creationism may be right. However, since this would pretty much overturn biology, medicine, chemistry and geology, the burden of proof is on the side of the creationists.
I'm an atheist, but I don't care if you talk to Jesus, God, whomever. That's your business and, hey, you might be right. But with respect to the actual, physical world we live in (aka The Universe), we should really stick those things that have some shred of evidence... especially when educating children.
Shit, I did that with linux in '99 or so (no joke).
Got this really cool, really bright white phosphor dot that took about a day to fade (despite the fact the monitor was unplugged).
I love the show guys, and really appreciate the recent emphasis on explaining the science of what you're doing.
That said, regarding the civil war rocket... who the hell decided to test a rocket INSIDE THE SHOP???
Thanks!
Yes. Yes I do. The very fact that you can casually refer to ancient Greece and Rome and be understood actually says a lot about HOW great they were, and that they have been considered so for quite a long time.
Full function, not-for-resale. The launch I'm going to is giving VS standard and MSSQL
Gurgling was fun... dropping wounded sims out of the copter was also interesting.
Not to mention buzzing crowds: "Get moving you lazy Sims!"
Heh, I did much the same thing, except I added an out-of-reach TV that kept the sim awake. Eventually he went nuts (the thought bubble cycled wildly) and he died.
Also fun is sending an inept sim to use a BBQ, pausing the game and adding a wall of bushes around them both. It's just a matter of time before it's a Simferno!
I seem to recall a few obscure games from a company called Maxis! Sheesh, GTA3 is great, but they hardly invented or popularized the open-ended game.
Nah, the designs build on each other... MER is based on the Pathfinder probe technology, the followup mission will build on MER. This is a good plan.
Yeah, but the dateline (and dead tree version, most likely) was 3 days ago. It's not a conspiracy, the editor just tried to yank the dupe before too many people bitched.
Doesn't seem to have worked, tho.
What, exactly, is wrong with "Spectre" ???
Bullshit, I'd stand in line for that film :)
If you lost touch with family due to Katrina, please visit:
http://www.survivorregistry.com/
Katrina survivors can leave messages for family, plus we link to several other lost and found sites.