The point is that we're not complaining about the US centric nature of slashdot. We're just complaining about calling American Football "Football" at all. It's a silly name let's face it. Wimps Rugby would be my proposal:)
But lets be honest here. Books are fundamentally different to music or movies or software. For the vast majority of readers, a physical book is the preferred medium, and you can't pirate these.
Does this mean that it doesn't work like this for purely digital works? No, but it isn't evidence that it does either.
I'm normally ready to believe most allegations against Putin, but I think we do need a little more evidence in this case - someone credible making the allegation at the very least.
Your option b) would be my favourite if there is more to this than there appears, but I remain to be convinced.
Well it won't be filled under "Correction" - it's a standard AP story, not a mistake admission. That said I'm sure you're right that the it won't be in a particularly prominent position in a physical newspaper.
Well at the time of writing the AP story is dated at 10 hours old by Google, and there are 113 reprints of it according to Google News Sorted by date with duplicates included (seem to be a couple of non-duplicates on the same topic as well, Ars Technica for example, and this Slashdot story will probably show up at some point).
I'd expect this number to increase but not spectacularly, so I'd say it's getting reasonable coverage but no, it's not set the world on fire or anything.
Religion reveals the truth of divine revelation. Which means that it is true by axiom, not proof. If the "revealed truth" isn't actually true, then it isn't of divine origin. Which does much to explain why religious institutions are very conservative when it comes to accepting new ideas.
I'm absolutely fine with that. As far as I'm concerned the big fat red line comes when religious "evidence" is fed back into the scientific process.
As long as this line isn't crossed religion is just religion, and can be treated as such. It's when it starts to intrude upon other areas that the problems start.
I wouldn't even bother to say this, but I'm terribly afraid that large parts of the American public do not agree.
Its one thing to honestly point out flaws in a product, which he did and I'm not saying it wasn't a bad game. Its quite another to tell people that something is terrible and they shouldn't buy it.
I really don't agree with this. There is a long tradition in mainstream journalism of giving no holds barred bad reviews. Sure you don't say "this movie was fucking shit", but you might well see something along the lines of "the movie started badly and by the half hour mark my brain had crawled out of my ears and was quivering under my seat." Outspoken reviewers who can lambast a bad movie or restaurant in an entertaining way tend to be highly valued at any major publication.
It's been a while since I read Dune, and I haven't read all the later books, but I had the impression that "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a huma mind" came about because men turning their thinking over to machines had allowed other men with machines to enslave them, rather than the Terminator or Matrix idea of the machines working for themselves.
I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree on the age of the Earth. I don't have enough knowledge of the various fields myself to say much more than I already have, but I remain completely convinced that those who do have a watertight case.
I guess you might say I have faith in science (well scientists anyway). Now there's an uncomfortable position for an atheist to be in;) Despite that, you can't go through life verifying everything for yourself, and I know which side of the debate I find most convincing.
Something interesting I've taken from this conversation: I've always assumed that Creationists hold their positions because of an unwillingness to give up the old Argument from Design - evolution directly contradicts this formerly compelling proof for the existence of God, and I've always seen this as the main point; the 6000 year old Earth being merely a necessary assumption that must be made if you want to contradict evolution with even a pretence at rationality.
The impression I've go from your posts is that you hold to the young Earth for biblical reasons, and reject evolution principally because it is incompatible with this. I'm not sure exactly why I find that interesting - possibly just because it is a more internally consistent position, even if based on what I consider a seriously flawed axiom.
Anyway, it's always a pleasure to talk with someone who holds very different opinions to mine and is willing and able to argue them, so thank-you.
I don't think anyone is arguing that mutations are (or at least can be for the theory to hold) non-random - TFA only talking about selection. IOW nothing to see here... move along.
I can see where you're coming from, but speaking as an atheist who's not had to go through what you have (both parents and 50% of grandparents are atheist), I can say that losing your temper simply doesn't work. I can understand your need to vent, but if you want people to actually listen to you then being polite, and importantly sticking to one issue at a time rather than just attacking all religions generally, is a better method.
Of course you're very unlikely to convert anyone outright, but if you can get them to listen you may be able to plant a few seeds which might one day grow into the beautiful flower of sceptisism.
I'm really not too sure how you can reject the age of the Earth being in the low billions of years, every indication we have for the date points to it - dating by radioactive decay, geological examination (hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary rock build-ups, mountain ranges which conform to the idea of plate tectonics and then erosion), the fossil record, the observable history of asteroid impacts on the Earth and other observable bodies in the solar system, examination of other stars and galaxies (which allow us to examine all stages of their lifecycles). Simply the fact that we can detect EM radiation from things billions of light years away indicates the universe is that age (admittedly not the Earth, but my understanding of Creation is that it is meant to be a fairly all encompassing event). All of this fits with the conventional age of the Earth.
Now an all powerful God could fake any of this of course, but that doesn't seem to fit too well with how God is generally portrayed by believers.
My Grandmother was a Roman Catholic and I asked her once about how she viewed Genesis (annoying teenager sniping at his elders religion basically), she said (from memory, this was over ten years ago) she viewed the early books of the bible as chronicling the journey of the Jewish people towards an understanding of God - that much of the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally, but it was still a vital guide towards knowledge of God. I find this explanation quite a lot easier to buy than the idea that God buried the fossils in order to test our faith or whatever.
As I understand it (and I apologise if I'm wrong) the 6000 year figure for the age of the Earth comes from essentially figuring out the timeline of the bible and adding it all together - particularly the various begats and other family information. Now while any Christian obviously holds that the bible comes from God, the simple fact that we have different sects of Christianity with differing scriptures surely must indicate that men have had input into the bible. For this reason I think that, even accepting a very literal interpretation of the early books of the Old Testament (and Christianity itself in my case) for the sake of this point, using the bible as a guide to the age of the Earth is unsound.
While British prisons are no doubt dangerous places, the explicit enjoyment of locking someone up in the hope that they will be anally raped is a uniquely American phenomenon.
The "evolution" model is based on a presupposition that the world is millions, if not billions of years old.
ok, but this hardly weakens evolution, while the copious evidence that the Earth is a few billion does rather knock a literal interpretation of Genesis on the head. Entire major fields of the physical sciences support the conventional age of the Earth - geology, astrophysics etc.
The only claims against it are from people who need to believe otherwise for religious reasons. There are plenty of forums where scientific argument to contrary could be presented, but those who claim to be Creation "scientists" restrict themselves to the popular press where they don't have to face peer review, and mutter about conspiracies to keep them out of scientific circles in the same way believers in Astrology or Homoeopathy or psychic powers do.
Also, the claim that life evolved from absolute nothingness (and I mean absolute), and has since evolved over this "millions of years" presupposition, to what it is today. The notion that something can come from a lack of anything is absurd and is also in contradiction to what the Bible says. God was, is, and is to come. His eternal existence is outside human comprehension. So to claim that nothing was ever created and that space, time, and matter appeared from a void, is contrary to what the Bible says.
This is kind of what I was digging at when I said I thought you might not really understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the actual origins of life and only deals with what happened to get from the first primitive life to the current state of life on Earth. Yes an atheist such as myself might speculate on some method not involving God as the origin of life, but this is 100% entirely separate from evolution. There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that contradicts even slightly your belief that life was created by the direct intersession of God.
Although, when so-called "scientific" theories, based on these presuppositions as discussed in this post, are being pushed through the education system as fact, then there is a problem, particularly also because it is in opposition to the Gospel.
There is propaganda from both sides. The question that needs to be asked is what are the consequences for rejecting the theory of evolution, and what are the consequences for rejecting the Gospel.
If science is being taught as fact then the problem is a poor understanding of what science is - either by those teaching it or possibly by those criticising the teaching of it who are so angry that they aren't assessing it fairly. Science is not about "The Truth", science is about observing the world, building mathematical models based on our observation and then testing those models. Most hypothesises die early, some become widely accepted due to the evidence for them and lack of any evidence against them; at this point they are known as Theories. Any theory can be disproved or replaced if contrary evidence or a more encompassing model comes to light.
Some theories acquire so much evidence that it becomes almost impossible to believe they will be disproved, evolution being a prime example. It could happen, but to do so you would either have to provide clear contradictory evidence, or provide a better more predictive model which is as well supported by the evidence as evolution.
You worry about "rejecting the Gospel". I worry about rejecting science. To be honest religion has little or nothing to add to science, since science requires hard, reproducible evidence. People who try to get religion mandated in the science class are not going to make their God any more or less true. What they will do is churn out a generation of people who simply don't understand science or how to look at a problem scientifically. I see this as a very worrying trend.
Have a look at the fall of he Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, what happened to the Mayans, Easter Island etc. and think again about whether every generation has been proven wrong
Give an example of a post Enlightenment society that has broken down like that and I think you'll have a point. We've come a long long way from the Dark Ages however, and absent a catastrophe (which admittedly could be self inflicted) I don't see us going for Decline and Fall.
While I can accept that as an argument in favour for having faith, you were making specific "scientific" arguments against the theory of evolution. Now I've got no evidence against a God, and no evidence that contradict God as a first-cause for the universe or the origin of life (I could argue metaphysics with you but anyway..;).
However the scientific arguments for evolution (ie what got us from the first bit of life up to the present day) are so comprehensive and compelling that the only reason I can see to object to it is if you find it incompatible with your faith.
If this is the case then I would classify your arguments in favour of Creationism (as a replacement for evolution, not simply saying that God created life) as part of your faith; presumably you disagree with those who interpret Genesis as an allegory, as many Christians are willing to do. As such you can't expect anyone who is approaching the question scientifically to take your arguments very seriously - atheists or believers; the Vatican has stated that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity I believe.
If you do think Creationism is reasonable from a purely scientific standard then I really would advise reading up on it. I'm sure this sounds arrogant but there is so much anti-evolution propaganda out there that it is likely that you don't actually understand it properly.
Does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? I mean do those arguments actually convince you of something, or do you simply know that they are true since you take their conclusions on faith?
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that we're not complaining about the US centric nature of slashdot. We're just complaining about calling American Football "Football" at all. It's a silly name let's face it. Wimps Rugby would be my proposal :)
>Yet
Indeed.
But lets be honest here. Books are fundamentally different to music or movies or software. For the vast majority of readers, a physical book is the preferred medium, and you can't pirate these.
Does this mean that it doesn't work like this for purely digital works? No, but it isn't evidence that it does either.
I'm normally ready to believe most allegations against Putin, but I think we do need a little more evidence in this case - someone credible making the allegation at the very least.
Your option b) would be my favourite if there is more to this than there appears, but I remain to be convinced.
Well it won't be filled under "Correction" - it's a standard AP story, not a mistake admission. That said I'm sure you're right that the it won't be in a particularly prominent position in a physical newspaper.
Well at the time of writing the AP story is dated at 10 hours old by Google, and there are 113 reprints of it according to Google News Sorted by date with duplicates included (seem to be a couple of non-duplicates on the same topic as well, Ars Technica for example, and this Slashdot story will probably show up at some point).
I'd expect this number to increase but not spectacularly, so I'd say it's getting reasonable coverage but no, it's not set the world on fire or anything.
I'm absolutely fine with that. As far as I'm concerned the big fat red line comes when religious "evidence" is fed back into the scientific process.
As long as this line isn't crossed religion is just religion, and can be treated as such. It's when it starts to intrude upon other areas that the problems start.
I wouldn't even bother to say this, but I'm terribly afraid that large parts of the American public do not agree.
I really don't agree with this. There is a long tradition in mainstream journalism of giving no holds barred bad reviews. Sure you don't say "this movie was fucking shit", but you might well see something along the lines of "the movie started badly and by the half hour mark my brain had crawled out of my ears and was quivering under my seat." Outspoken reviewers who can lambast a bad movie or restaurant in an entertaining way tend to be highly valued at any major publication.
sigh - Three apostrophes missed in five words, that has to be some kind of record.
PS
>it's the Bolivian navy armed maneuvers in the south pacific!
I'm sure its "the Bolivian navy on manoeuvres in the south pacific!"
Its.. Its.. Its.. An apple!
It's been a while since I read Dune, and I haven't read all the later books, but I had the impression that "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a huma mind" came about because men turning their thinking over to machines had allowed other men with machines to enslave them, rather than the Terminator or Matrix idea of the machines working for themselves.
I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree on the age of the Earth. I don't have enough knowledge of the various fields myself to say much more than I already have, but I remain completely convinced that those who do have a watertight case.
;) Despite that, you can't go through life verifying everything for yourself, and I know which side of the debate I find most convincing.
I guess you might say I have faith in science (well scientists anyway). Now there's an uncomfortable position for an atheist to be in
Something interesting I've taken from this conversation: I've always assumed that Creationists hold their positions because of an unwillingness to give up the old Argument from Design - evolution directly contradicts this formerly compelling proof for the existence of God, and I've always seen this as the main point; the 6000 year old Earth being merely a necessary assumption that must be made if you want to contradict evolution with even a pretence at rationality.
The impression I've go from your posts is that you hold to the young Earth for biblical reasons, and reject evolution principally because it is incompatible with this. I'm not sure exactly why I find that interesting - possibly just because it is a more internally consistent position, even if based on what I consider a seriously flawed axiom.
Anyway, it's always a pleasure to talk with someone who holds very different opinions to mine and is willing and able to argue them, so thank-you.
I don't think anyone is arguing that mutations are (or at least can be for the theory to hold) non-random - TFA only talking about selection. IOW nothing to see here... move along.
Seriously, I *promise* I tagged this wateriswet before I read the dept byline..
No, they were protesting what this pope said before he was pope.
I can see where you're coming from, but speaking as an atheist who's not had to go through what you have (both parents and 50% of grandparents are atheist), I can say that losing your temper simply doesn't work. I can understand your need to vent, but if you want people to actually listen to you then being polite, and importantly sticking to one issue at a time rather than just attacking all religions generally, is a better method.
Of course you're very unlikely to convert anyone outright, but if you can get them to listen you may be able to plant a few seeds which might one day grow into the beautiful flower of sceptisism.
I'm really not too sure how you can reject the age of the Earth being in the low billions of years, every indication we have for the date points to it - dating by radioactive decay, geological examination (hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary rock build-ups, mountain ranges which conform to the idea of plate tectonics and then erosion), the fossil record, the observable history of asteroid impacts on the Earth and other observable bodies in the solar system, examination of other stars and galaxies (which allow us to examine all stages of their lifecycles). Simply the fact that we can detect EM radiation from things billions of light years away indicates the universe is that age (admittedly not the Earth, but my understanding of Creation is that it is meant to be a fairly all encompassing event). All of this fits with the conventional age of the Earth.
Now an all powerful God could fake any of this of course, but that doesn't seem to fit too well with how God is generally portrayed by believers.
My Grandmother was a Roman Catholic and I asked her once about how she viewed Genesis (annoying teenager sniping at his elders religion basically), she said (from memory, this was over ten years ago) she viewed the early books of the bible as chronicling the journey of the Jewish people towards an understanding of God - that much of the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally, but it was still a vital guide towards knowledge of God. I find this explanation quite a lot easier to buy than the idea that God buried the fossils in order to test our faith or whatever.
As I understand it (and I apologise if I'm wrong) the 6000 year figure for the age of the Earth comes from essentially figuring out the timeline of the bible and adding it all together - particularly the various begats and other family information. Now while any Christian obviously holds that the bible comes from God, the simple fact that we have different sects of Christianity with differing scriptures surely must indicate that men have had input into the bible. For this reason I think that, even accepting a very literal interpretation of the early books of the Old Testament (and Christianity itself in my case) for the sake of this point, using the bible as a guide to the age of the Earth is unsound.
- Did you come to me because you are a shell script, me insensitive clod?
While British prisons are no doubt dangerous places, the explicit enjoyment of locking someone up in the hope that they will be anally raped is a uniquely American phenomenon.
ok, but this hardly weakens evolution, while the copious evidence that the Earth is a few billion does rather knock a literal interpretation of Genesis on the head. Entire major fields of the physical sciences support the conventional age of the Earth - geology, astrophysics etc.
The only claims against it are from people who need to believe otherwise for religious reasons. There are plenty of forums where scientific argument to contrary could be presented, but those who claim to be Creation "scientists" restrict themselves to the popular press where they don't have to face peer review, and mutter about conspiracies to keep them out of scientific circles in the same way believers in Astrology or Homoeopathy or psychic powers do.
This is kind of what I was digging at when I said I thought you might not really understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the actual origins of life and only deals with what happened to get from the first primitive life to the current state of life on Earth. Yes an atheist such as myself might speculate on some method not involving God as the origin of life, but this is 100% entirely separate from evolution. There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that contradicts even slightly your belief that life was created by the direct intersession of God.
If science is being taught as fact then the problem is a poor understanding of what science is - either by those teaching it or possibly by those criticising the teaching of it who are so angry that they aren't assessing it fairly. Science is not about "The Truth", science is about observing the world, building mathematical models based on our observation and then testing those models. Most hypothesises die early, some become widely accepted due to the evidence for them and lack of any evidence against them; at this point they are known as Theories. Any theory can be disproved or replaced if contrary evidence or a more encompassing model comes to light.
Some theories acquire so much evidence that it becomes almost impossible to believe they will be disproved, evolution being a prime example. It could happen, but to do so you would either have to provide clear contradictory evidence, or provide a better more predictive model which is as well supported by the evidence as evolution.
You worry about "rejecting the Gospel". I worry about rejecting science. To be honest religion has little or nothing to add to science, since science requires hard, reproducible evidence. People who try to get religion mandated in the science class are not going to make their God any more or less true. What they will do is churn out a generation of people who simply don't understand science or how to look at a problem scientifically. I see this as a very worrying trend.
Give an example of a post Enlightenment society that has broken down like that and I think you'll have a point. We've come a long long way from the Dark Ages however, and absent a catastrophe (which admittedly could be self inflicted) I don't see us going for Decline and Fall.
While I can accept that as an argument in favour for having faith, you were making specific "scientific" arguments against the theory of evolution. Now I've got no evidence against a God, and no evidence that contradict God as a first-cause for the universe or the origin of life (I could argue metaphysics with you but anyway.. ;).
However the scientific arguments for evolution (ie what got us from the first bit of life up to the present day) are so comprehensive and compelling that the only reason I can see to object to it is if you find it incompatible with your faith.
If this is the case then I would classify your arguments in favour of Creationism (as a replacement for evolution, not simply saying that God created life) as part of your faith; presumably you disagree with those who interpret Genesis as an allegory, as many Christians are willing to do. As such you can't expect anyone who is approaching the question scientifically to take your arguments very seriously - atheists or believers; the Vatican has stated that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity I believe.
If you do think Creationism is reasonable from a purely scientific standard then I really would advise reading up on it. I'm sure this sounds arrogant but there is so much anti-evolution propaganda out there that it is likely that you don't actually understand it properly.
Does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? I mean do those arguments actually convince you of something, or do you simply know that they are true since you take their conclusions on faith?
There was a big fight about it some time back, and the Christians haven't quite got over it yet.