I'm not sure where you are going with this, since what we can observe is the world we live in. In case we start accounting for actors that are not bound by the laws of nature there is no way of predicting anything. Fortunately world and universe seems to follow rules set in motion billions of years ago. As far as I know there are no evidence of acts of god (unnatural major events) found or happening as we speak.
Perhaps your not sure because you have an incorrect assumption about the observable world we live in. First, I never said anything was evidence of a God or a God's interaction. I said our understanding of the natural world around us does not prove anything like that never happened or that it was impossible to of happened. Our understanding of the natural world can only tell us how it might have happened if it was all natural. And even that is subject to change if and when our understanding changes.
Have you ever heard the saying "there is more then one way to skin a cat"? Well the meaning is that there can be multiple ways of achieving the same goal. For instance, driving a car from two distinct points to another in one country may require you to drive on the right side of the road where in another country it may require driving on the left side of the road. Either way, you still got from your house to the local market. So the existence and understanding of one way to achieve a goal does not disprove the possibility of another. That's the mistake the parent has made in which he assumes all beliefs he doesn't share is incorrect because he believed in his own beliefs. He is in essence doing what he and others criticize the religious of doing. At best, with out understanding of the natural world around us, we can say if it happened naturally, it would have happened something like this. We cannot say it didn't happen like that, but we can say we chose to believe it happened this way because it's useful in our related understandings.
I believe the goal has never been to annoy religious people or disprove the existence of god/gods.
Your right. This is because the existence of god or a god's hand in nature is not testable or falsifiable so it lives outside the real of science. However, that hasn't stopped people and their intent from taking science to use for their benefit in this realm. The interesting thing is that the parts of the bible which come into actual conflict with the scientific understanding of the universe aren't provable either. We can build from them and see how well they fit within other areas and make assumptions of their correctness; we can even carry a degree of certainty with those assumptions, but we can't prove them without recreating them or witnessing it which is about the same as would be needed to prove or disprove the religious theories.
Problem comes when schools and society are suggested to follow teaching that have no basis on observations or theory provided by scientific method. How do we select which omnipotent being we believe did all this and how? I cannot understand why we shouldn't observe the past or universe with observed laws of nature but should rely on some thousands of years old scriptures that contradict the reality. Explaining it all with omnipotent being who is not bound by the laws of nature just doesn't work.
Actually, this is more of a chicken and egg problem. In other words, which came first, science claiming religion was wrong or religion claiming science was wrong? Actually, when I was taught in school about evolution and abiogenesis (3.5 decades ago), when the question of religion was brought up, the teacher simply said this is science and this is what you need to know in science. She did not say one was correct or not and this has seemed to disappeared from education nowadays.
Anyways, if you pay attention to the drives to get god back into schools, it isn't about supplanting science and pi
I was just attempting to see if you was one of those blind believers who thought evolution was irrefutable fact that could never be wrong. Surprisingly, you will find a number of self proclaimed atheist who practice the same amount- if not more faith in believing evolution and abiogenesis as they criticize creationists over.
You have sort of done that too. Probably without even knowing it. The alternatives to evolution would have to be a better model within the parameters you decide you need in order to accept it. I mean you are already saying better model of showing how the diversity of life arrived on our little world as clear if not more so then the current model. I don't know how more clear some magic man in the sky just creating it could be. Of course the means to which he held the power and ability to pop something into existence would still be a mystery, but as far as the diversity and all, it would be no different then you grabbing random shards of glass and gluing them into an art project.
So if a giant being more powerful then man appears someday and creates life right in front of you by simply speaking it into existence, will his statements and the resulting life ever be enough for you to accept evolution as only partly correct?
Here is something you should remember, just because it sounds right and you can imagine it being right, doesn't always make it so. At different points in time, the world being flat sounded right and made sense to many. At different points in time, leaches sucked the bad blood out thereby weakening the illness. At different points in time, god in chariots set afire raced across the sky attempting to catch on another. At different points in time, powered flight was physically impossible. Are you starting to see where I am going here? Arbitrary limits on our knowledge imposed by special restrictions in order for you to understand or comprehend has retarded our advancements all throughout history including today.
I find that in my personal observations those that refute evolution tend to take a literal view of the Bible instead of a more moderate and slightly more sane view of taking the entire book of Genesis as a story and not historical fact. I have not yet met another faith that refutes Evolution so fervently as a Christian with a literal historical view of the Bible.
A quick note on this. This is more of a tit for tat then anything. Evolution, in the places that it conflicts with genesis, is more speculation then fact (scientifically speaking). Yet the bigger problem is that science can't address genesis or creation because it's untestable and not falsifiable. Those self proclaimed atheist who seem to have adopted evolution as their new world religion I mentioned earlier attack creation and the stories of genesis which is why you see the reverse attack on evolution. More recently, it's been people in positions of power over the populations like ill trained science teachers who state opinion over fact and make that opinion about religion. Most all people can reconcile both within their existence and if you read genesis, you will see that there was man outside the garden of Eden so genesis pertains to a select creation of men in which was the ones saved in the flood through the acts of Noah. (Adam and Eve's children married people that were not family and not in the garden) And to that, it's entirely possible that evolution actually occurred in parallel with genesis or vice versa. The rest is mans attempts to reconcile within himself.
So are you saying that evolution is undeniably true and correct and nothing else could ever have happened instead of it?
Or is there only a problem when certain people attempt to refute evolution- even when it's only the parts that have not been observed without changing definitions to suit the need?
I don't have to prove anything. I wasn't asserting anything other then the lack of evidence does not disprove anything. I'm not even saying anything about the book of genesis other then the claim against it was missing in reality and facts.
Stop looking at this like a personal vendetta and hiding behind science to reinforce your fallacies. It's not like you were molested by a priest or anything, and even if you were, attack the man not what the man pretended to stand for. Even if you don't believe it's true, understand what proof and prove means and know that none of it was shown in the post.
It doesn't matter if man came from an ash tree or was created with a thought and had life breathed into him. it was attempted to claim there was proof it didn't happen and failed to show it. All that was done in the end was to show how you/the other person has little understanding of what science is and what prove means.
Yawn.. someone else who doesn't know what the word proves actually means or what science actually says.
Gen 1- No proof that some omnipotent being could not have done that. There is suggestion that it didn't happen that way but there is no prove disproving it.
Gen 3: See above. Your understanding of something is not proof of something else never happening. Especially when it was supposed to happen by some magical man in the sky who isn't limited to the physics and world we know of.
Gen 7:You still do not have proof it didn't happen- you just can't find proof that it did happen. But not finding proof of something does not in any way disprove the claim, it simply doesn't make you believe if happened. This is especially troubling when it supposedly happened at the hands of the same magic man who doesn't operate by the bounds of physics as we are.
Gen 11 is probably supposed to be gen 1:11 anyways, see above.. BTW, how do you prove something wrong when the thing was supposedly done by someone all powerful and mighty that can just make things happen in a magical way? The best you can say is that it works differently in our capabilities and understandings of them. But how do you prove some magic never happened?
Actually, I'm going to assume you meant all these to be in genesis 1 and just left the chapters out.
Gen 14-18: And see above. Where is the proof that at some point in time, some magical things did not ever happen as described?
Gen 20: Do I sound like I am repeating myself? Again, see above, your snarky comments aren't proof of anything- especially when we are supposedly dealing with an entity not bound to the same rules as us.
The rest of it is more of the same. I really thought you knew something others didn't. Turns out that your more confused then you think everyone else is.
If you read the bible, you will find that it's a set of different covenants with a certain god and sets of people that gets made and broken throughout the years. When Jesus came about, he explained that we are not smart enough to keep the strict rules of god (because of our free will, see his teachings on divorce) so if we followed him and asked for forgiveness, it would happen. It was a new approach, one with an understanding that we aren't perfect because we have free will that can be tempted. The old testament to most Christians is little more of a history book detailing where we were and how we got here. The only parts of it that are extremely relevant to most Christians are the parts repeated in the new testament with the teachings of the Christ.
Actually, you should look it up. The scientific method does not prove anything right, it assume something that is supported can be right until proven wrong. Science is the attempted explanation of our natural surroundings and enviroment. You can never prove something right in science, or else it loses the ability to be disproved and the quest for understanding stops because it's outside the realm of science now. Remember, the scientific method says something has to be falsifiable. It doesn't matter how many tests show our understanding works, once it become proven, it stops being falsifiable.
Just out of curiosity, what parts of Genesis are provably wrong? And please don't say how man was made, how the earth as we know it was made or anything like that. You can show a likelihood of another explanation but none of that has been proven over anything else.
I agree with you almost entirely. It's not that I disagree at all with what you said, it's just that I wanted to point out or remind you that none of the religious books actually say the earth is a certain age (coming to 6000 years). That's little more then man's interpretations and attempts to understand it. They attempted to add up all the years of the characters in the bible to reach that age of the earth outside of it. This is true for Jews and Christians. I think the Muslim bible says a certain age at a certain time but that too could just be someone's reconciliation with what they were presented.
Not that it makes any difference with what you said.
Actually, it's more like it's more illegal to gather then use publicly available information to prepare and commit a crime.
It's one of those things that the information posses a risk along with the good that it creates. And just like crowbars or tools, instead of banning them altogether or requiring everyone to be a member of some trade group or get a government license to possess and use them, they instead make the gathering and use illegal when it's done for the commission of a crime.
It's probably a case where these tools make committing robbery easier with less of a chance of getting caught. And instead of banning these tools as criminal tools or making everyone gain some sort of government or trade license to use them, they are rightfully going after the people using them to break laws and do bad things.
It used to be that you would have to case a place out before knowing your target. This leads to people being able to identify you as a suspect when they see you doing it (if anyone is paying attention). Now, you simply look a neighborhood up on Google maps, scan for the yard with the swimming pool or nice and expensive looking lawn furniture while in aerial view, then go to street view to determine what kind of entry doors or windows with bushes to hide your break in are available. 90 percent of the leg work is already done before you even visit the house in person. You can take it one step further and pay some patsy to ride his bike down the sidewalk and wreck into a parked car in the driveway in order to see if there is a security alarm, faking and injury to get emergency response times and determine if there is anything valuable/movable in the house to make it worth robbing. Just make sure the patsy is in a place at the time of the actual robbery that his alibi removes him from being a suspect.
No. Sulfur is not a lubricant, nor has it ever been. The process that removes sulphur also removes the lubrication. It's not a problem with any modern diesel. Europe has been running 15 ppm for quite a while. The problem with sulphur is that it messes with after treatment catalysts and creates sulphuric acid in the oil. Without the low content extended oil change interval in Europe is along the lines of 30k miles for most modern diesel cars.
The point of the comment is the same even if the details were off. I still don't know that you are correct, but I do know that with the low sulfur fuels, you need to use additives to increase the lubrication to the top end. In that end, I have no reason to distrust your statement because it's basically saying the same thing. when the fuel had changed, lubrication was effected, and the engines designed to use the different fuels aren't the same beasts any more. Surely you are not attempting to say that the changes in the new engines aren't anything important on it's operation or with fuel economy. We are placing more requirements on manufacturers and to meet these requirements, the fuel economy of 30 decades ago isn't really comparable to the economy of today.
As for modern vehicles being fine with it, that may not be as common as you suggest. I had a 550hp Detroit Diesel and I could see an extra 1 to 1.5 mpg increase by simply adding a gallon of Lucas fuel treatment to each tank every fill up (about 150 gallons per tank). This was a 2004 engine. I don't have the truck any more as the guy I had operating it purchased it outright in 2008.
Second, I never said that it would pass emissions or safety standards. The statement that I was replying to was "Most cars from that era I remember hearing about got a solid 8 MPG.".
And I was addressing the point in the thread in which you cannot compare the fuel economy of 3 decades ago with today because the scene has fundamentally changed. If you took the 30 year old car and updated it to today's standards, you would have something using about the same amount of fuel if not more as today's cars. I see your point about your example being specific to a post, but I was taking it with the thread.
And to your sibling: It wasn't politics, it was GM screwing up their diesel engines so badly that everyone associated Diesel with unreliable, won't start in the winter, smelly, etc.
And this is something I totally agree with. However, your point would probably be better served with the sibling poster and he seems to be the one needing that correction.
Your 1978 Diesel rabbit also wouldn't pass today's emissions or safety standards if it was brought back into production.
This is a problem with comparing old verses new. AC went from being an option to standard equipment, most cars kick it on when you run the defrosters. That's why they work just as well when set to cold or hot. It's another reason why you seem to get less fuel economy in the winter. But emissions standards have required better pollution control system that weren't in place in 1978 and even the fuel has changed since then. They started removing the sulfur content from road use Diesel fuel which acted as an upper cylinder lubricant (which is one of the reason BIO Diesel works so well- it has a component that acts in the same manner causing less friction loss).
what the hell are you talking about? I mean it's not wise to call someone an idiot when you can't even post a proper link or make the link go to anything reasonably close to what your rambling about. Do you feel the need to put others down so you can feel better about your own existence?
Oh well, learn how to troll before attempting to do so.
Why not? Even though apple relies on heavy handed protections and control with their app store, they are basically hosting at the direction of third parties. And these are third parties who claimed to have a right to distribute the software under Apple's restrictions to boot.
It's been longer since Bush was in office and a war was started then Obama being in office without starting a war. I'm not even sure why you think that was/is meaningful enough to bring up. I mean after starting two war, Bush went 5 or 6 years without starting another and Obama has only went 2.
In other words, as for starting new wars, nothing has changed.
Anyways, the concept or idea presented by the hope and change was that citizens would no longer take a back seat to businesses and that government would be open. That hasn't changed, the Net Neutrality that was sponsored by the FCC was basically, you can't purposely stop your customers from getting what you sold them which is what Powell advocated as FCC chair with the exception of stating it was ok to offer more then they are selling as long as the customer got what they paid for. You would think that with an issue such as this, one being almost completely about the consumer not being cheated, that the administration as well as both parties would be behind it. However, I fear that they are being presented the same logic as you have presented, no new war means change when there have been no new wars for 5 years previously. When something is nothing, people can be made to believe anything- even if it's the opposite of what they truly stand for. When nothing is something, it can be worse. And example of this, how does requiring ISPs to deliver the service they sold the customer result in lost jobs? It would seem to me that if they can't provide the service they sold or have to resort to purposely restricting it to levels below what they sold, then they are under staffed to begin with.
Anyways, a simple law that could be made that would completely negate net neutrality is one that says no ISP can take action or cause actions to be take to restrict the network performance for any of their customers to below the levels they represented when advertising or selling the service unless it's necessary to make physical repairs or stop an attack on resources. This would make SBC attempting to charge Google for you using Google's service without SBC slowing Google down to dial up speeds, it will stop Comcast from injecting packets to cause your torrents to fail or somehow otherwise restrict you from using your internet connection within the limits they advertised when you purchased it.
You don't need a bunch of regulation. Just a basic tenet that requires the ISP to deliver what they sold you to the best of their ability and control. And that shouldn't be change or anything. Existing laws should be able to cover this quite readily but somehow it's escaping them because the FCC already ruled Internet services as an information service instead of a utility (In a case about Time Warner sharing lines). Getting what you paid for is not only the laws in most states as well as the federal level, it's the spirit of those laws along with the letter.
You point is sort of muted by the fact that not only did it pass, but more of the same was done in the next administration with a congress controlled by the same parties. However, they decried that was necessary and we simply didn't understand the intricate composition of the banking/finance system. Then the government took over GM, rammed health care through, did more bailouts and so on. All of which seemed to be against public opinion. In fact, public opinion was so bad, it appears the most democrat congress critters were expecting to lose their seats in the upcoming election. In fact, it was so bad that Saturday Night Live broke for the tradition of bashing only republicans and joking with democrats and did a skit parodying it. Well, actually, SNL has been doing quite a bit of Obama bashing which is strange seeing how they publicly admitted to favoring Obama and trashing Palin in order to hamper republican chances.
Anyways, I agree with your first past the post comment. I just do not think things should change. All of the purposed solutions seem to be either superficial or make things worse.
Here is how net Neutrality will help-harm and why what you care about relies on it.
Without net Neutrality, your ISP can arrange it so that the only movies you can download (legitimate or otherwise) can take 5 days unless you purchase the movie from their specific service or whomever you are downloading it from pays an extortion fee. Don't doubt me, we have already seen the head of SBC/ATT claim that Google should pay them if they want their sites to work in a timely fashion on their networks. Comcast, I believe it was, already started spoofing bit torrent traffic packets sending packet resets in order to prevent your downloads from completing.
Here is how it really effects you. When you purchased your internet, your ISP made statements regarding the speeds and access. If they are allowed to purposely restrict that, then it's the same as buying a a 1967 mustang car for $50k only to find out it's a glue together model any 7 year old could assemble, or that your car isn't the car that was advertised. If you are paying for something, then the ISP should not have the right to not deliver that service based on some third party payment to them because the site is on another network and they shouldn't be able to purposely and deliberately take steps to provide less then their offerings to you on account of you purchasing or using something from a third party instead of purchasing it through them.
In all other areas of business, if they advertise one level of service then purposely provide a lower one, it's illegal and called bait and switch or fraudulent advertising. For some reason, people think that the ISP's and larger network providers are exempt from that and you seem to only superficially care about what you want without realizing that you may not be able to get it without that(net Neutrality) being in place. As we have seen with actual actions in the past by ISPs as well as stated intents by other ISPs, your ability to get what you paid for or what you were led to believe you were paying for, is the essence of the problem. A 300 meg connection capable of downloading a full movie in 1 minute does you no good if you can only get that speed when accessing specially approved sites- even when others are more then capable of keeping up.
While I do not agree with the entire just say it part of your post, I do think you have a point on the what people think when something is bleeped.
Jimmy Fallon did a few random bleeps on different celeberty shows like aproah and it really seemed like they were cussing and swearing.
Anyways, this is the closest I can find surrounding it. I don't know if they redid the song or if they simply injected bleeps in it but it proves your point pretty well.
Prior art is sort showing that something was copied. You can't patent the automobile because it already exists and is in the public. Your neighbors car would be prior art.
Now, it doesn't really matter if you copied the thing itself or came up with the idea while being stoned one night and made it the next day while recovering. Being in the public is a way of saying you should have known.
Now when something isn't in the public, then being able to show that whoever is attempting to patent is was exposed to it before having a working solution/device is about the same as prior art. They knew it existed. However, that is a little harder to show. Something like that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the patent outside, it could invalidate their control of the patent and put it into the hands of the inverters.
For some people, doing a service to humanity is a noble enough thing. However, it's probably possible to create a free license to the patent for charity work and charge something for commercial work and save the same end results with money to boot.
I think this could all be mooted if there was compulsory licensing of patents when pertaining to certain fields. They could also step the compulsory licensing fee if the use is charitable or nonprofit.
I guess you and some windows Users have something in common.
Now all you need is a camera and some commercial time. Maybe a slogan like "nero 7,it was my idea".
All joking aside, they probably did listen to your email. There was probably a ton of others they listened to also. but rest assured, there is something in it for them outside of making you a happy customer. Companies tend to operate towards what is beneficial to them. IT may be that your email and they line up perfectly, but lets not get to carried away.
Unless the research was actually published in some way that the second group would have seen before being successful. A science journal they have a subscription to would suffice but lectures in which members of their team attended could pose just as big of a problem.
anyways, there should be compulsory licensing for any patent when used in a medical research/treatment environment.
Interesting jump there. To date, the military hasn't instituted anything regarding what the citizens can and can't do unless they were in the military or going in their bases. But that's nothing new, it's been going on in America since before the country was even a country.
This will probably get broken in implementation so bad that public outcry will cause the legislature to regulate the practice.
I had Verizon turn my service off once. I called complaining that it wasn't working and they sent me to a website describing complaints of illegally sharing movies. (yea, no internet access and they send me to a web site). I checked it on my laptop at another location then I pointed out that all three complaints were within 5 seconds of each other, the IP address listed was not the IP they assigned to me, and after about 20 minutes on hold, they turned the service back on. I didn't even get a "my bad, our mistake" or anything from them.
About two days later, I started receiving phone calls saying that my service was scheduled to be shut off because of copyright infringement. This time I checked the website and another 3 complaints were logged within 10 seconds of each other. They got the IP right this time though. The copyright violation was Mandriva spring ed. Supposedly there is some movie or something out there that looks similar enough to a linux distribution that they thought it was it. I have yet to find it though.
After another 20 minutes of arguing with them, they told me to ignore it. I mentioned something about suing them for harassment. 6 months later my service stopped working again, I stopped paying them.
I don't think it will be much different in Ireland. Especially if third parties are involved and they do the same shit, file 3 complaints within seconds of each other in order to get to the max and shut the service off.
Not if I own the computer. In that case, I can damage it in any way I like, and no one cares. This is different from the case with animals: Even if I am the sole owner of an animal, I have obligations not to cause it unnecessary harm. This is because society has decided that it is bad for the animal itself that it suffers, and it should have to. It is not because it is unethical to destroy things in general, it is unethical because the animal can experience the suffering.
You do not own the computer. You also do not own the animal. You have ownership of it and all the rights to that, but you are forbidden to do certain things to it. You can only slaughter it in certain ways, you can't have sex with it legally, you can't mistreat it. This isn't because laws say the animal has rights, it says you can't do certain things with animals.
I'm not sure where you found this information, but I don't think it is correct. It might be true in some corner cases, but even if you can plant faster growing crops you generally get a net loss, as each step in the food chain reduces the energy content by about 90%. This an important reason why meat is considerably more expensive than grains and many other vegetables. It is also the reason people in regions with dense population and high poverty almost never eat much meat.
You are forgetting about the way humans process different foods as well as what I said about land not being suited for food crops. Animals like cattle, deer, gosys, sheep and so on will eat the weeds that grow. Hogs will eat human scraps and just about anything else. Commercial production of food animals will need arable lands but historically, this isn't a necessity. Also the reason why large poor populations refrain from eating meat is because of the population density. Raising meat requires and area and air that isn't quite suitable for large populations. Concentrate what I said on the arable lands. that means lands we can grow crops on verses lands not suitable for growing crops.
They need fodder, unlike vegetables which only need a storage place.
Sort of. Animals like deer and goats will forage without the aid if humans. Livestock like cattle and hogs will need fodder but they can also forage given enough land. I just put down two wild hogs on my land about a month ago. They came over from the neighbors land who doesn't seem to care if they are there or not. Wild hogs/boar will tear the land up something fierce. In the commercial scene, you are right, but animal feed doesn't need to be stored and kept in ways that human food will. It creates less of a strain and so on.
Anyways, I didn't mean that we should forgo vegetables, I'm simply stating that there are advantages to using them. especially when you consider the b12 issues.
I'm not trying to say meat as a food has no use, and our bodies are quite obviously adapted to have meat as one food source. And as I said before, I personally have no problem with eating meat, although I'm not particularly fond of the way animals are treated in the industrialized meat production of today. But I think it is hard to make the case that we couldn't stop eating it if we chose to.
I somewhat agree here. However, I do make a conscious effort to by meat from known farmers in the area that practice less industrialized farming. In fact, I generally know my hamburger before it even gets ground up. I also hunt so I get quite a bit of meat from there too. I fish but I generally catch and release unless we are camping and cooking some sort of pan fish over an open fire.
If you are turned off by the industrialized meat productions process, then you can probably go to a farm and purchase a side of beef cheaper then what you would pay in the grocery for the same cuts. There are drawbacks to this though, you only get certain amounts of steaks, you can specify mor
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps your not sure because you have an incorrect assumption about the observable world we live in. First, I never said anything was evidence of a God or a God's interaction. I said our understanding of the natural world around us does not prove anything like that never happened or that it was impossible to of happened. Our understanding of the natural world can only tell us how it might have happened if it was all natural. And even that is subject to change if and when our understanding changes.
Have you ever heard the saying "there is more then one way to skin a cat"? Well the meaning is that there can be multiple ways of achieving the same goal. For instance, driving a car from two distinct points to another in one country may require you to drive on the right side of the road where in another country it may require driving on the left side of the road. Either way, you still got from your house to the local market. So the existence and understanding of one way to achieve a goal does not disprove the possibility of another. That's the mistake the parent has made in which he assumes all beliefs he doesn't share is incorrect because he believed in his own beliefs. He is in essence doing what he and others criticize the religious of doing. At best, with out understanding of the natural world around us, we can say if it happened naturally, it would have happened something like this. We cannot say it didn't happen like that, but we can say we chose to believe it happened this way because it's useful in our related understandings.
Your right. This is because the existence of god or a god's hand in nature is not testable or falsifiable so it lives outside the real of science. However, that hasn't stopped people and their intent from taking science to use for their benefit in this realm. The interesting thing is that the parts of the bible which come into actual conflict with the scientific understanding of the universe aren't provable either. We can build from them and see how well they fit within other areas and make assumptions of their correctness; we can even carry a degree of certainty with those assumptions, but we can't prove them without recreating them or witnessing it which is about the same as would be needed to prove or disprove the religious theories.
Actually, this is more of a chicken and egg problem. In other words, which came first, science claiming religion was wrong or religion claiming science was wrong? Actually, when I was taught in school about evolution and abiogenesis (3.5 decades ago), when the question of religion was brought up, the teacher simply said this is science and this is what you need to know in science. She did not say one was correct or not and this has seemed to disappeared from education nowadays.
Anyways, if you pay attention to the drives to get god back into schools, it isn't about supplanting science and pi
I was just attempting to see if you was one of those blind believers who thought evolution was irrefutable fact that could never be wrong. Surprisingly, you will find a number of self proclaimed atheist who practice the same amount- if not more faith in believing evolution and abiogenesis as they criticize creationists over.
You have sort of done that too. Probably without even knowing it. The alternatives to evolution would have to be a better model within the parameters you decide you need in order to accept it. I mean you are already saying better model of showing how the diversity of life arrived on our little world as clear if not more so then the current model. I don't know how more clear some magic man in the sky just creating it could be. Of course the means to which he held the power and ability to pop something into existence would still be a mystery, but as far as the diversity and all, it would be no different then you grabbing random shards of glass and gluing them into an art project.
So if a giant being more powerful then man appears someday and creates life right in front of you by simply speaking it into existence, will his statements and the resulting life ever be enough for you to accept evolution as only partly correct?
Here is something you should remember, just because it sounds right and you can imagine it being right, doesn't always make it so. At different points in time, the world being flat sounded right and made sense to many. At different points in time, leaches sucked the bad blood out thereby weakening the illness. At different points in time, god in chariots set afire raced across the sky attempting to catch on another. At different points in time, powered flight was physically impossible. Are you starting to see where I am going here? Arbitrary limits on our knowledge imposed by special restrictions in order for you to understand or comprehend has retarded our advancements all throughout history including today.
A quick note on this. This is more of a tit for tat then anything. Evolution, in the places that it conflicts with genesis, is more speculation then fact (scientifically speaking). Yet the bigger problem is that science can't address genesis or creation because it's untestable and not falsifiable. Those self proclaimed atheist who seem to have adopted evolution as their new world religion I mentioned earlier attack creation and the stories of genesis which is why you see the reverse attack on evolution. More recently, it's been people in positions of power over the populations like ill trained science teachers who state opinion over fact and make that opinion about religion. Most all people can reconcile both within their existence and if you read genesis, you will see that there was man outside the garden of Eden so genesis pertains to a select creation of men in which was the ones saved in the flood through the acts of Noah. (Adam and Eve's children married people that were not family and not in the garden) And to that, it's entirely possible that evolution actually occurred in parallel with genesis or vice versa. The rest is mans attempts to reconcile within himself.
So are you saying that evolution is undeniably true and correct and nothing else could ever have happened instead of it?
Or is there only a problem when certain people attempt to refute evolution- even when it's only the parts that have not been observed without changing definitions to suit the need?
I don't have to prove anything. I wasn't asserting anything other then the lack of evidence does not disprove anything. I'm not even saying anything about the book of genesis other then the claim against it was missing in reality and facts.
Stop looking at this like a personal vendetta and hiding behind science to reinforce your fallacies. It's not like you were molested by a priest or anything, and even if you were, attack the man not what the man pretended to stand for. Even if you don't believe it's true, understand what proof and prove means and know that none of it was shown in the post.
It doesn't matter if man came from an ash tree or was created with a thought and had life breathed into him. it was attempted to claim there was proof it didn't happen and failed to show it. All that was done in the end was to show how you/the other person has little understanding of what science is and what prove means.
Yawn.. someone else who doesn't know what the word proves actually means or what science actually says.
Gen 1- No proof that some omnipotent being could not have done that. There is suggestion that it didn't happen that way but there is no prove disproving it.
Gen 3: See above. Your understanding of something is not proof of something else never happening. Especially when it was supposed to happen by some magical man in the sky who isn't limited to the physics and world we know of.
Gen 7:You still do not have proof it didn't happen- you just can't find proof that it did happen. But not finding proof of something does not in any way disprove the claim, it simply doesn't make you believe if happened. This is especially troubling when it supposedly happened at the hands of the same magic man who doesn't operate by the bounds of physics as we are.
Gen 11 is probably supposed to be gen 1:11 anyways, see above.. BTW, how do you prove something wrong when the thing was supposedly done by someone all powerful and mighty that can just make things happen in a magical way? The best you can say is that it works differently in our capabilities and understandings of them. But how do you prove some magic never happened?
Actually, I'm going to assume you meant all these to be in genesis 1 and just left the chapters out.
Gen 14-18: And see above. Where is the proof that at some point in time, some magical things did not ever happen as described?
Gen 20: Do I sound like I am repeating myself? Again, see above, your snarky comments aren't proof of anything- especially when we are supposedly dealing with an entity not bound to the same rules as us.
The rest of it is more of the same. I really thought you knew something others didn't. Turns out that your more confused then you think everyone else is.
If you read the bible, you will find that it's a set of different covenants with a certain god and sets of people that gets made and broken throughout the years. When Jesus came about, he explained that we are not smart enough to keep the strict rules of god (because of our free will, see his teachings on divorce) so if we followed him and asked for forgiveness, it would happen. It was a new approach, one with an understanding that we aren't perfect because we have free will that can be tempted. The old testament to most Christians is little more of a history book detailing where we were and how we got here. The only parts of it that are extremely relevant to most Christians are the parts repeated in the new testament with the teachings of the Christ.
Actually, you should look it up. The scientific method does not prove anything right, it assume something that is supported can be right until proven wrong. Science is the attempted explanation of our natural surroundings and enviroment. You can never prove something right in science, or else it loses the ability to be disproved and the quest for understanding stops because it's outside the realm of science now. Remember, the scientific method says something has to be falsifiable. It doesn't matter how many tests show our understanding works, once it become proven, it stops being falsifiable.
Just out of curiosity, what parts of Genesis are provably wrong? And please don't say how man was made, how the earth as we know it was made or anything like that. You can show a likelihood of another explanation but none of that has been proven over anything else.
I agree with you almost entirely. It's not that I disagree at all with what you said, it's just that I wanted to point out or remind you that none of the religious books actually say the earth is a certain age (coming to 6000 years). That's little more then man's interpretations and attempts to understand it. They attempted to add up all the years of the characters in the bible to reach that age of the earth outside of it. This is true for Jews and Christians. I think the Muslim bible says a certain age at a certain time but that too could just be someone's reconciliation with what they were presented.
Not that it makes any difference with what you said.
Actually, it's more like it's more illegal to gather then use publicly available information to prepare and commit a crime.
It's one of those things that the information posses a risk along with the good that it creates. And just like crowbars or tools, instead of banning them altogether or requiring everyone to be a member of some trade group or get a government license to possess and use them, they instead make the gathering and use illegal when it's done for the commission of a crime.
It's probably a case where these tools make committing robbery easier with less of a chance of getting caught. And instead of banning these tools as criminal tools or making everyone gain some sort of government or trade license to use them, they are rightfully going after the people using them to break laws and do bad things.
It used to be that you would have to case a place out before knowing your target. This leads to people being able to identify you as a suspect when they see you doing it (if anyone is paying attention). Now, you simply look a neighborhood up on Google maps, scan for the yard with the swimming pool or nice and expensive looking lawn furniture while in aerial view, then go to street view to determine what kind of entry doors or windows with bushes to hide your break in are available. 90 percent of the leg work is already done before you even visit the house in person. You can take it one step further and pay some patsy to ride his bike down the sidewalk and wreck into a parked car in the driveway in order to see if there is a security alarm, faking and injury to get emergency response times and determine if there is anything valuable/movable in the house to make it worth robbing. Just make sure the patsy is in a place at the time of the actual robbery that his alibi removes him from being a suspect.
The point of the comment is the same even if the details were off. I still don't know that you are correct, but I do know that with the low sulfur fuels, you need to use additives to increase the lubrication to the top end. In that end, I have no reason to distrust your statement because it's basically saying the same thing. when the fuel had changed, lubrication was effected, and the engines designed to use the different fuels aren't the same beasts any more. Surely you are not attempting to say that the changes in the new engines aren't anything important on it's operation or with fuel economy. We are placing more requirements on manufacturers and to meet these requirements, the fuel economy of 30 decades ago isn't really comparable to the economy of today.
As for modern vehicles being fine with it, that may not be as common as you suggest. I had a 550hp Detroit Diesel and I could see an extra 1 to 1.5 mpg increase by simply adding a gallon of Lucas fuel treatment to each tank every fill up (about 150 gallons per tank). This was a 2004 engine. I don't have the truck any more as the guy I had operating it purchased it outright in 2008.
And I was addressing the point in the thread in which you cannot compare the fuel economy of 3 decades ago with today because the scene has fundamentally changed. If you took the 30 year old car and updated it to today's standards, you would have something using about the same amount of fuel if not more as today's cars. I see your point about your example being specific to a post, but I was taking it with the thread.
And this is something I totally agree with. However, your point would probably be better served with the sibling poster and he seems to be the one needing that correction.
Your 1978 Diesel rabbit also wouldn't pass today's emissions or safety standards if it was brought back into production.
This is a problem with comparing old verses new. AC went from being an option to standard equipment, most cars kick it on when you run the defrosters. That's why they work just as well when set to cold or hot. It's another reason why you seem to get less fuel economy in the winter. But emissions standards have required better pollution control system that weren't in place in 1978 and even the fuel has changed since then. They started removing the sulfur content from road use Diesel fuel which acted as an upper cylinder lubricant (which is one of the reason BIO Diesel works so well- it has a component that acts in the same manner causing less friction loss).
what the hell are you talking about? I mean it's not wise to call someone an idiot when you can't even post a proper link or make the link go to anything reasonably close to what your rambling about. Do you feel the need to put others down so you can feel better about your own existence?
Oh well, learn how to troll before attempting to do so.
Why not? Even though apple relies on heavy handed protections and control with their app store, they are basically hosting at the direction of third parties. And these are third parties who claimed to have a right to distribute the software under Apple's restrictions to boot.
It's been longer since Bush was in office and a war was started then Obama being in office without starting a war. I'm not even sure why you think that was/is meaningful enough to bring up. I mean after starting two war, Bush went 5 or 6 years without starting another and Obama has only went 2.
In other words, as for starting new wars, nothing has changed.
Anyways, the concept or idea presented by the hope and change was that citizens would no longer take a back seat to businesses and that government would be open. That hasn't changed, the Net Neutrality that was sponsored by the FCC was basically, you can't purposely stop your customers from getting what you sold them which is what Powell advocated as FCC chair with the exception of stating it was ok to offer more then they are selling as long as the customer got what they paid for. You would think that with an issue such as this, one being almost completely about the consumer not being cheated, that the administration as well as both parties would be behind it. However, I fear that they are being presented the same logic as you have presented, no new war means change when there have been no new wars for 5 years previously. When something is nothing, people can be made to believe anything- even if it's the opposite of what they truly stand for. When nothing is something, it can be worse. And example of this, how does requiring ISPs to deliver the service they sold the customer result in lost jobs? It would seem to me that if they can't provide the service they sold or have to resort to purposely restricting it to levels below what they sold, then they are under staffed to begin with.
Anyways, a simple law that could be made that would completely negate net neutrality is one that says no ISP can take action or cause actions to be take to restrict the network performance for any of their customers to below the levels they represented when advertising or selling the service unless it's necessary to make physical repairs or stop an attack on resources. This would make SBC attempting to charge Google for you using Google's service without SBC slowing Google down to dial up speeds, it will stop Comcast from injecting packets to cause your torrents to fail or somehow otherwise restrict you from using your internet connection within the limits they advertised when you purchased it.
You don't need a bunch of regulation. Just a basic tenet that requires the ISP to deliver what they sold you to the best of their ability and control. And that shouldn't be change or anything. Existing laws should be able to cover this quite readily but somehow it's escaping them because the FCC already ruled Internet services as an information service instead of a utility (In a case about Time Warner sharing lines). Getting what you paid for is not only the laws in most states as well as the federal level, it's the spirit of those laws along with the letter.
You point is sort of muted by the fact that not only did it pass, but more of the same was done in the next administration with a congress controlled by the same parties. However, they decried that was necessary and we simply didn't understand the intricate composition of the banking/finance system. Then the government took over GM, rammed health care through, did more bailouts and so on. All of which seemed to be against public opinion. In fact, public opinion was so bad, it appears the most democrat congress critters were expecting to lose their seats in the upcoming election. In fact, it was so bad that Saturday Night Live broke for the tradition of bashing only republicans and joking with democrats and did a skit parodying it. Well, actually, SNL has been doing quite a bit of Obama bashing which is strange seeing how they publicly admitted to favoring Obama and trashing Palin in order to hamper republican chances.
Anyways, I agree with your first past the post comment. I just do not think things should change. All of the purposed solutions seem to be either superficial or make things worse.
Here is how net Neutrality will help-harm and why what you care about relies on it.
Without net Neutrality, your ISP can arrange it so that the only movies you can download (legitimate or otherwise) can take 5 days unless you purchase the movie from their specific service or whomever you are downloading it from pays an extortion fee. Don't doubt me, we have already seen the head of SBC/ATT claim that Google should pay them if they want their sites to work in a timely fashion on their networks. Comcast, I believe it was, already started spoofing bit torrent traffic packets sending packet resets in order to prevent your downloads from completing.
Here is how it really effects you. When you purchased your internet, your ISP made statements regarding the speeds and access. If they are allowed to purposely restrict that, then it's the same as buying a a 1967 mustang car for $50k only to find out it's a glue together model any 7 year old could assemble, or that your car isn't the car that was advertised. If you are paying for something, then the ISP should not have the right to not deliver that service based on some third party payment to them because the site is on another network and they shouldn't be able to purposely and deliberately take steps to provide less then their offerings to you on account of you purchasing or using something from a third party instead of purchasing it through them.
In all other areas of business, if they advertise one level of service then purposely provide a lower one, it's illegal and called bait and switch or fraudulent advertising. For some reason, people think that the ISP's and larger network providers are exempt from that and you seem to only superficially care about what you want without realizing that you may not be able to get it without that(net Neutrality) being in place. As we have seen with actual actions in the past by ISPs as well as stated intents by other ISPs, your ability to get what you paid for or what you were led to believe you were paying for, is the essence of the problem. A 300 meg connection capable of downloading a full movie in 1 minute does you no good if you can only get that speed when accessing specially approved sites- even when others are more then capable of keeping up.
While I do not agree with the entire just say it part of your post, I do think you have a point on the what people think when something is bleeped.
Jimmy Fallon did a few random bleeps on different celeberty shows like aproah and it really seemed like they were cussing and swearing.
Anyways, this is the closest I can find surrounding it. I don't know if they redid the song or if they simply injected bleeps in it but it proves your point pretty well.
Prior art is sort showing that something was copied. You can't patent the automobile because it already exists and is in the public. Your neighbors car would be prior art.
Now, it doesn't really matter if you copied the thing itself or came up with the idea while being stoned one night and made it the next day while recovering. Being in the public is a way of saying you should have known.
Now when something isn't in the public, then being able to show that whoever is attempting to patent is was exposed to it before having a working solution/device is about the same as prior art. They knew it existed. However, that is a little harder to show. Something like that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the patent outside, it could invalidate their control of the patent and put it into the hands of the inverters.
For some people, doing a service to humanity is a noble enough thing. However, it's probably possible to create a free license to the patent for charity work and charge something for commercial work and save the same end results with money to boot.
I think this could all be mooted if there was compulsory licensing of patents when pertaining to certain fields. They could also step the compulsory licensing fee if the use is charitable or nonprofit.
I guess you and some windows Users have something in common.
Now all you need is a camera and some commercial time. Maybe a slogan like "nero 7,it was my idea".
All joking aside, they probably did listen to your email. There was probably a ton of others they listened to also. but rest assured, there is something in it for them outside of making you a happy customer. Companies tend to operate towards what is beneficial to them. IT may be that your email and they line up perfectly, but lets not get to carried away.
Unless the research was actually published in some way that the second group would have seen before being successful. A science journal they have a subscription to would suffice but lectures in which members of their team attended could pose just as big of a problem.
anyways, there should be compulsory licensing for any patent when used in a medical research/treatment environment.
Interesting jump there. To date, the military hasn't instituted anything regarding what the citizens can and can't do unless they were in the military or going in their bases. But that's nothing new, it's been going on in America since before the country was even a country.
This will probably get broken in implementation so bad that public outcry will cause the legislature to regulate the practice.
I had Verizon turn my service off once. I called complaining that it wasn't working and they sent me to a website describing complaints of illegally sharing movies. (yea, no internet access and they send me to a web site). I checked it on my laptop at another location then I pointed out that all three complaints were within 5 seconds of each other, the IP address listed was not the IP they assigned to me, and after about 20 minutes on hold, they turned the service back on. I didn't even get a "my bad, our mistake" or anything from them.
About two days later, I started receiving phone calls saying that my service was scheduled to be shut off because of copyright infringement. This time I checked the website and another 3 complaints were logged within 10 seconds of each other. They got the IP right this time though. The copyright violation was Mandriva spring ed. Supposedly there is some movie or something out there that looks similar enough to a linux distribution that they thought it was it. I have yet to find it though.
After another 20 minutes of arguing with them, they told me to ignore it. I mentioned something about suing them for harassment. 6 months later my service stopped working again, I stopped paying them.
I don't think it will be much different in Ireland. Especially if third parties are involved and they do the same shit, file 3 complaints within seconds of each other in order to get to the max and shut the service off.
You do not own the computer. You also do not own the animal. You have ownership of it and all the rights to that, but you are forbidden to do certain things to it. You can only slaughter it in certain ways, you can't have sex with it legally, you can't mistreat it. This isn't because laws say the animal has rights, it says you can't do certain things with animals.
You are forgetting about the way humans process different foods as well as what I said about land not being suited for food crops. Animals like cattle, deer, gosys, sheep and so on will eat the weeds that grow. Hogs will eat human scraps and just about anything else. Commercial production of food animals will need arable lands but historically, this isn't a necessity. Also the reason why large poor populations refrain from eating meat is because of the population density. Raising meat requires and area and air that isn't quite suitable for large populations. Concentrate what I said on the arable lands. that means lands we can grow crops on verses lands not suitable for growing crops.
Sort of. Animals like deer and goats will forage without the aid if humans. Livestock like cattle and hogs will need fodder but they can also forage given enough land. I just put down two wild hogs on my land about a month ago. They came over from the neighbors land who doesn't seem to care if they are there or not. Wild hogs/boar will tear the land up something fierce. In the commercial scene, you are right, but animal feed doesn't need to be stored and kept in ways that human food will. It creates less of a strain and so on.
Anyways, I didn't mean that we should forgo vegetables, I'm simply stating that there are advantages to using them. especially when you consider the b12 issues.
I somewhat agree here. However, I do make a conscious effort to by meat from known farmers in the area that practice less industrialized farming. In fact, I generally know my hamburger before it even gets ground up. I also hunt so I get quite a bit of meat from there too. I fish but I generally catch and release unless we are camping and cooking some sort of pan fish over an open fire.
If you are turned off by the industrialized meat productions process, then you can probably go to a farm and purchase a side of beef cheaper then what you would pay in the grocery for the same cuts. There are drawbacks to this though, you only get certain amounts of steaks, you can specify mor