"The Pope, for instance, was born a Catholic, and he ended up being a university professor and a curia cardinal. You might not like his answers to various questions of philosophy, but he probably knows more about more religions, and particularly his own, than some self-satisfied dilettante who is a member of the Religion of the Month Club."
Absolutely false.
If he did, he'd know when man made up Christianity, in great detail, like academic theologians do. You know, the religious, that study this stuff, discover it's made up and no longer believe in the Christ myth. If you aren't aware of this you're not really qualified to have this discussion.
No. Dude, just no. Science goes back a lot further than 400 years. Does the name Hippocrates ring a bell? Pythagoras? Their science still holds, it's universally true.
Religion? we know when and where man made it up, and why.
If you studied the religion, instead of just swallowing the kool-aid, you'd know this. But you haven't even looked and I doubt very much you will.
This disqualifies you from commenting on science ever. We don't ignore evidence we don't like. Especially evidence that falsifies everything we hold true.
Not quite. A theorem is some premises, which are true, and some logic that is self-consistant, and a conclusion which is by definition true. This is formal logic 101.
A hypothesis is unproven. It's a guess, often a good guess, but is not always true, like a theorem is.
We can see evolution in action today. Pick a scale, 5, 10, 20, 100 years and I can give you an example.
We know from the fossil record what animals (and plants) evolve into others. If you assert there's some other mechanism at work there then you have two problems:
1) what is it? 2) when did things change from that to the current method?
I would urge all evolutionists to learn about religion: it's genesis and creation. It's well documented and the easiest way to prove evolution is real is to point out all religions (and there are thousands of them) are made up by man.
I would urge all creationists to study evolutionary biology. It would help if you knew what you were talking about.
Dead right. Show me signs of god and I'll believe. Sign. Just one. But I see nothing that would let a reasonable person believe in Zeus, Odin or the Abrahamic god.
This may be especially difficult as there are plenty of signs man made this up. We call it "documented history" and examples abound. You won't hear about this from a religious school, but that doesn't mean it exists.
If you want to play in science you have to use the same things to make it rigorous, that is you need to try to falsify, or disprove your own theory. This is easily done by looking at the origin of the Abrahamic religions.
"Where evolution falls flat is trying to claim that a dinosaur evolved into a bird, or an ape evolved into a human. There is no solid evidence to show that a species can evolve into a different species"
You literally do not know what you are talking about.
When you find a single shred of evidence in this universe that there is, let us know.
Just one. Just one that makes tiny earth so special in this unbelievably enormous universe.
Until then the evidence that man made this up is sorta overwhelming.
Religion is the only topic of study that when you study the origins of it, you stop believing what you study. Cause it really was made up and the still-faithful just haven't researched it. Those that do become atheists if they have any interest in the truth. The rest just need the crutch, and many people do.
I'm not even sure I understand what you're saying here.
But if I have two oranges and you have two oranges and I give you mine, it's not open to interpretation as to how many you now have.
One persons bias is worked around by never relying on one person. People try to disprove as much as prove any theory. When we run out of other explanations we tend to think we've arrived at the answer.
So I take it you haven't looked a the genesis and evolution of Christianity?
Summary: when the Persians left in 70AD many poeple wanted a return to the temple-state, so they reycled the classics (Greek, Roman, etc) mythology, added a bit of local color, and the Christ myth (ages old) became the Jesus cult and spread from there.
If you have to read only one book on this Bernard Mack's is probably the best. If you're totally ADHD and can't read look at "Who wrote the new testament" on archive.org. Even some church ministers/higher ups don't actually believe Jesus existed.
So, to base a scientific explanation on a functional mythology... sorry, there's no way to make that work.
It's one thing to have an informed opinion, that is to have really spent some time with the language and to be able to identify the good and bad points. Buf if you aren't familiar with something, you really can't criticize it objectively. This is the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
I'm guessing if you had a wealth of experience with the language you'd have made a substantive point.
Therefore it's reasonable to assume you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Pope, for instance, was born a Catholic, and he ended up being a university professor and a curia cardinal. You might not like his answers to various questions of philosophy, but he probably knows more about more religions, and particularly his own, than some self-satisfied dilettante who is a member of the Religion of the Month Club."
Absolutely false.
If he did, he'd know when man made up Christianity, in great detail, like academic theologians do. You know, the religious, that study this stuff, discover it's made up and no longer believe in the Christ myth. If you aren't aware of this you're not really qualified to have this discussion.
OMG.
No. Dude, just no. Science goes back a lot further than 400 years. Does the name Hippocrates ring a bell? Pythagoras? Their science still holds, it's universally true.
Religion? we know when and where man made it up, and why.
If you studied the religion, instead of just swallowing the kool-aid, you'd know this. But you haven't even looked and I doubt very much you will.
This disqualifies you from commenting on science ever. We don't ignore evidence we don't like. Especially evidence that falsifies everything we hold true.
Not quite. A theorem is some premises, which are true, and some logic that is self-consistant, and a conclusion which is by definition true. This is formal logic 101.
A hypothesis is unproven. It's a guess, often a good guess, but is not always true, like a theorem is.
So what? That's like your plumber saying tensor calculus is a bunch of hokum. It's the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
That is, they don't know enough to know they're wrong or why.
"All of them have some benefit"
Oh no. Not at all. Look at any good endocrinology test.
Hint: don't look at the pictures too soon before bed. They will haunt you for years. Decades.
Yes but Malthus was proved wrong.
False.
We can see evolution in action today. Pick a scale, 5, 10, 20, 100 years and I can give you an example.
We know from the fossil record what animals (and plants) evolve into others. If you assert there's some other mechanism at work there then you have two problems:
1) what is it?
2) when did things change from that to the current method?
I would urge all evolutionists to learn about religion: it's genesis and creation. It's well documented and the easiest way to prove evolution is real is to point out all religions (and there are thousands of them) are made up by man.
I would urge all creationists to study evolutionary biology. It would help if you knew what you were talking about.
" If evolution is so rock solid, won't it stand up to any scrutiny no matter what? "
That's the thing. It does. To deny this is to display a profound ignorance of the subject.
"Logic is a crappy way to determine how things work."
You're not a programmer are you?
Things happen for a reason. If there's no reason, they don't happen.
Dead right. Show me signs of god and I'll believe. Sign. Just one.
But I see nothing that would let a reasonable person believe in Zeus, Odin or the Abrahamic god.
This may be especially difficult as there are plenty of signs man made this up. We call it "documented history" and examples abound. You won't hear about this from a religious school, but that doesn't mean it exists.
If you want to play in science you have to use the same things to make it rigorous, that is you need to try to falsify, or disprove your own theory. This is easily done by looking at the origin of the Abrahamic religions.
Ball in your court, believers.
"Where evolution falls flat is trying to claim that a dinosaur evolved into a bird, or an ape evolved into a human. There is no solid evidence to show that a species can evolve into a different species"
You literally do not know what you are talking about.
"People like you claim that evolution it's proven, but it's not proven."
If you believe that's true you don't know enough about it to judge.
"science of creationism"
There is no such thing. Also, half the statements in your posting are false. And that's being kind. You cannot back them up.
But go ahead and try if you want. You know which ones I mean.
Sure, and Gregor Mendel did the seminal work on genetics that led to evolution, and he was a monk.
About those stopped clocks being right twice a day...
Yeah yeah, I took logic and math in uni too, and at the higher levels there are courses that are joint math/philosophy.
Both formal and informal ("rhetoric") logic were part of the philosophy curriculum, but you need them for math.
(all biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, all physics is math all math is philosphy)
"It is quite possible that we can never prove an answer to the question of a creator. That is my belief after decades of study"
Nobody gives a shit about your beliefs. You may choose to believe a flying unicorn is god. Doesn't matter.
"It is quite possible that we can never prove an answer to the question of a creator."
Prove it. Looks to me like you just made this up. Without proving it, you may as well have.
WUT?
Something exists, but there will be no sign it exists? How is that any different from something that doesn't actually exist?
Just one shred of evidence. That's all, just one. 5000 years this godly twadle has been around and not one sign of a single shred of evidence.
Hey, what are the odds of that?
" "is there a creator?" "
When you find a single shred of evidence in this universe that there is, let us know.
Just one. Just one that makes tiny earth so special in this unbelievably enormous universe.
Until then the evidence that man made this up is sorta overwhelming.
Religion is the only topic of study that when you study the origins of it, you stop believing what you study. Cause it really was made up and the still-faithful just haven't researched it. Those that do become atheists if they have any interest in the truth. The rest just need the crutch, and many people do.
Orson Wells had the best explanation of this.
Gravity is to us what static electricity was to the ancient Egyptians. We know it's there and what it does, we just don't know how it works.
(actually he was talking about ghosts, but gravity is a much better example)
Bingo.
I'm not even sure I understand what you're saying here.
But if I have two oranges and you have two oranges and I give you mine, it's not open to interpretation as to how many you now have.
One persons bias is worked around by never relying on one person. People try to disprove as much as prove any theory. When we run out of other explanations we tend to think we've arrived at the answer.
It is. And people need to remember that until fairly recently, Texas was a blue state.
So I take it you haven't looked a the genesis and evolution of Christianity?
Summary: when the Persians left in 70AD many poeple wanted a return to the temple-state, so they reycled the classics (Greek, Roman, etc) mythology, added a bit of local color, and the Christ myth (ages old) became the Jesus cult and spread from there.
If you have to read only one book on this Bernard Mack's is probably the best. If you're totally ADHD and can't read look at "Who wrote the new testament" on archive.org. Even some church ministers/higher ups don't actually believe Jesus existed.
So, to base a scientific explanation on a functional mythology... sorry, there's no way to make that work.
Lua is more powerful than Javascript, but with an even simpler learning curve.
Can you back this up? I took a quick look at it. Meh. At least js has C syntax.
What is it you can do in lua you can't in js?
At this point a language slightly better than js isn't enough because of the installed base. It would have to be 10X better. And I'm not seeing that.
Ok I'll bite. What language would you replace js with in the browser?
If you're gonna say Erlang, please don't even bother clicking the submit button.
It's one thing to have an informed opinion, that is to have really spent some time with the language and to be able to identify the good and bad points. Buf if you aren't familiar with something, you really can't criticize it objectively. This is the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
I'm guessing if you had a wealth of experience with the language you'd have made a substantive point.
Therefore it's reasonable to assume you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.