How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an 'unnecessary hypothesis'?
I asked for the same thing right after graduation. My parents had an odd notion that they would retailiate somehow if I asked while still in school. It turns out they apparently were in a rush to shred my records as they were shreded the day of graduation. (I asked the day after). Of course, I did have an atourney, which helps in the fear area.
The result of my bullying happened to be me valuing civil liberties even more than i did before. Of course the bullying was coming from a teacher and the administration who supported this teacher no matter what he did. Had every one of my civil liberties been enforced, I would be a rich man from all the torts I would have litigated.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823:
"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
And Adams, Hancock, and Hammilton were Federalists. Their party was initially opposed to the bill of rights and advocated the consentration of power with the federal government (as opposed to the consentration of power with the states that we see today). Which party do you think laid the seeds that became the most "American"?
Our early country was guided by democratic-republican principles and agriarian values. The leader of the democratic-republicans was clearly opposed to a religious centered government. There are several other great early leaders who were opposed to government-religious interaction. This includes James Monroe (the author of our constitution) and Ben Franklin (prominent scientist and publisher) along with many others.
America was clearly founded on a secular governmental policy. The founders knew the danger of mixing religion with government. The evidence is as easily retrievable as the 1st Amendment in the bill of rights (opposed by the federalists but ratified by the rest of the American people). Get over it.
By "mutual respect" I mean that administrators priously defend the academic rights of teachers, but when a student uses the same freedoms to say something unpopular, then the rights of the student are ignored. The meaning of 'cockmaster' is moot because its purpose is purely emotional. I believe the student has an academic right to use language that triggers an emotional response even if that word is obscene. For example, I have read many college level novels that use language such as "shit", "damn" and "fuck". If this student can't write 'cockmaster' on his blog, then literary books that use similar language should also be banned. This would preclude works such as: Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, and especially Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. To ban obscene language in student's private blogs, while permitting it in literary works the students must study (which are assigned to students by a professor, i.e. academic freedom), is IMHO extremely hypocritical and violates the spirit of "mutual respect".
Usually universities have a policy of "academic freedom" for professors and students as well as a policy of "mutual respect." I find it ironic that the same administrators who so piously defend academic freedom are the first to deny it to the students they serve. If 'cockmaster' is the best emotional trigger the student wanted to use in his writing, then why not allow him to use it? The school is being hypocritical in this situation.
I find it ironic that the same officials who so priously defend academic freedom are the same people who deny students the same rights. I pay tuition to go to that college, its not like they are paying me to go there.
I wrote a speech for my student government campaign at Moorpark College and was punished for it. The school administration charged me with misuse of the college name. I didn't say anything I wasn't supposed to say; it was basically a collection talking points I later gave in several classroom speeches (there were 6).
Generally, the speech was about fiscal policy. It was critical and somewhat damning to those I was trying to replace, but overall it really wasn't that bad.
After a few days of "due process", the Dean revoked my membership on the student government by denying me the right to be sworn in (even though I won by a huge margin of votes). This was then overturned a day later. Then the Dean dropped the charge completely another day later on the advice of the college district's atourney. Needless to say, I was embarassed and my peers had many questions about why the college was acting the way it was (like why would the Dean be prosecuting me unless I had done something wrong?)
My point being, college officials don't care about due process, civil rights, or even student privacy. A similar incident happened to a friend on the student government, it happened to me, and it will probably happen again in the future. Regrettably, if you take a quick look at the ACLU website, you will find a huge list of similar violations of student rights. Schools will never learn that it is wrong. Frighteningly, this situation probably would have turned out alot different had I campaigned at a private university.
in science there are no absolute truths. . . It's not sacred, it's not "fact", and nobody takes it on faith.
Is gravity not an absolute truth? We see evolution in the fossil record. There is no other probable explaination than some form of the theory of evolution. But dismissing the theory as non-factual is like saying that gravity might not exist. Of course gravity exists and I don't need a leap of faith to take it as fact. Neither do I with evolution. Evolution exists, it is a fact, and creationists need to open their eyes to free inquiry.
show me one repeatable experiment where an animal actually independantly mutates to a genetic advantage.
What about the genetic mutation in early humans that resulted in a weaker jawbone muscle? If that random mutation had never happened, you certainly wouldn't be pushing around rediculous criticism with your apparently massive cranium.
I get so frustrated when creationists simply assume that something is not true, especially when the facts are only a few clicks away (google).
I simply cannot afford software of any kind. Therefore I pirate 100%. Think of it as capitalism. The internet provides a way to get the stuff you need for free; if you could download without fear, wouldn't you?
This could be really useful in Chicago where the buildings seem to natually channel the wind into small corridors. Just get a few turbines setup in the streats and you're good to go.
What about the scientific censorship of the RCC? If it weren't for the mode of thinking started by Aristotle and perpetuated by the church, humanity would surely be to the stars by now.
You say that your belief in God does not harm humanity, yet society faces the same breed of scientific censorship today. Stem cell research, if allowed to thrive outside of the arbitrary moral code set by the religious right and perpetuated by our democratic mode of government, we would surely have the cures to many physical and mental ailments.
So we have one genius with an IQ of 151 and another with an IQ of 160? Since when did the average geek IQ reach such high levels?
I'd hate to burst everyone's bubble, but online IQ tests are not authentic. They inflate your score so you will be more tempted to purchase their custom intelligence profile. A girl I dated in high school got a score of 125 using one of these sites, yet she wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed (but the bell curve peeks at an IQ of 100!!). I iterate again, these online IQ tests are definitely NOT accurate and can be SEVERELY INFLATED.
Just as my observation, if every slashdotter's posted IQ were to be taken as fact, then/. would be the greatest think-tank on the planet today, and indeed the greatest in all of human history. To put it all in perspective, an IQ of 135 is in the 99th percentile.
Yes that is true. But putting a black mark on a student's record wrongfully will get the school sued and the school will lose, especially if the student didn't fight back. Its all about protecting one's self from bodily harm. When schools harbor a culture of violence, they bear some responsibility when a student gets hurt.
Alot of us have made websites like this. I made one against my high school administration by posting a 22 page journal (single spaced type), which was SEVERLY damning to those involved (the site was appropriately titled "My Story"). But I wasn't suspended or anything because I posted the site live one day after graduation:-)
The site was actually kind of famous. I got around 400-5000 visits to the site every month. I feel kind of bad now for taking it down after 3 years. . .
A school I used to go to would suspend you if you were in a fight, even if you didn't defend yourself etc.
Actually, the school could be held liable for indiferent negligence in applying the conduct code and infliction of emotional distress. Also, if you were getting jumped ALOT and school officials saw it and did nothing, they could be held liable for not protecting you from harassment, assault, battery, etc.
Schools are responsible for your safety. If they fail to keep you safe, of punish you because you try to protect yourself from danger, then they can be held liable for SEVERE damages.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an 'unnecessary hypothesis'?
Yep. Apparently so.
I asked for the same thing right after graduation. My parents had an odd notion that they would retailiate somehow if I asked while still in school. It turns out they apparently were in a rush to shred my records as they were shreded the day of graduation. (I asked the day after). Of course, I did have an atourney, which helps in the fear area.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could sue our past bullies and the schools that fostered them? Damn statute of limitations...
The result of my bullying happened to be me valuing civil liberties even more than i did before. Of course the bullying was coming from a teacher and the administration who supported this teacher no matter what he did. Had every one of my civil liberties been enforced, I would be a rich man from all the torts I would have litigated.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823:
"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
And Adams, Hancock, and Hammilton were Federalists. Their party was initially opposed to the bill of rights and advocated the consentration of power with the federal government (as opposed to the consentration of power with the states that we see today). Which party do you think laid the seeds that became the most "American"?
Our early country was guided by democratic-republican principles and agriarian values. The leader of the democratic-republicans was clearly opposed to a religious centered government. There are several other great early leaders who were opposed to government-religious interaction. This includes James Monroe (the author of our constitution) and Ben Franklin (prominent scientist and publisher) along with many others.
America was clearly founded on a secular governmental policy. The founders knew the danger of mixing religion with government. The evidence is as easily retrievable as the 1st Amendment in the bill of rights (opposed by the federalists but ratified by the rest of the American people). Get over it.
By "mutual respect" I mean that administrators priously defend the academic rights of teachers, but when a student uses the same freedoms to say something unpopular, then the rights of the student are ignored. The meaning of 'cockmaster' is moot because its purpose is purely emotional. I believe the student has an academic right to use language that triggers an emotional response even if that word is obscene. For example, I have read many college level novels that use language such as "shit", "damn" and "fuck". If this student can't write 'cockmaster' on his blog, then literary books that use similar language should also be banned. This would preclude works such as: Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, and especially Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. To ban obscene language in student's private blogs, while permitting it in literary works the students must study (which are assigned to students by a professor, i.e. academic freedom), is IMHO extremely hypocritical and violates the spirit of "mutual respect".
Why is it unethical?
Usually universities have a policy of "academic freedom" for professors and students as well as a policy of "mutual respect." I find it ironic that the same administrators who so piously defend academic freedom are the first to deny it to the students they serve. If 'cockmaster' is the best emotional trigger the student wanted to use in his writing, then why not allow him to use it? The school is being hypocritical in this situation.
Imagine that!
I find it ironic that the same officials who so priously defend academic freedom are the same people who deny students the same rights. I pay tuition to go to that college, its not like they are paying me to go there.
I wrote a speech for my student government campaign at Moorpark College and was punished for it. The school administration charged me with misuse of the college name. I didn't say anything I wasn't supposed to say; it was basically a collection talking points I later gave in several classroom speeches (there were 6).
Generally, the speech was about fiscal policy. It was critical and somewhat damning to those I was trying to replace, but overall it really wasn't that bad.
After a few days of "due process", the Dean revoked my membership on the student government by denying me the right to be sworn in (even though I won by a huge margin of votes). This was then overturned a day later. Then the Dean dropped the charge completely another day later on the advice of the college district's atourney. Needless to say, I was embarassed and my peers had many questions about why the college was acting the way it was (like why would the Dean be prosecuting me unless I had done something wrong?)
My point being, college officials don't care about due process, civil rights, or even student privacy. A similar incident happened to a friend on the student government, it happened to me, and it will probably happen again in the future. Regrettably, if you take a quick look at the ACLU website, you will find a huge list of similar violations of student rights. Schools will never learn that it is wrong. Frighteningly, this situation probably would have turned out alot different had I campaigned at a private university.
Why can't the ISP's simply stop keeping this data?
What about the genetic mutation in early humans that resulted in a weaker jawbone muscle? If that random mutation had never happened, you certainly wouldn't be pushing around rediculous criticism with your apparently massive cranium.
I get so frustrated when creationists simply assume that something is not true, especially when the facts are only a few clicks away (google).
I simply cannot afford software of any kind. Therefore I pirate 100%. Think of it as capitalism. The internet provides a way to get the stuff you need for free; if you could download without fear, wouldn't you?
This could be really useful in Chicago where the buildings seem to natually channel the wind into small corridors. Just get a few turbines setup in the streats and you're good to go.
Violent crime is at it's lowest level in 30 years. However, violent media has become more and more common. Perhaps there is a correlation.
What about the scientific censorship of the RCC? If it weren't for the mode of thinking started by Aristotle and perpetuated by the church, humanity would surely be to the stars by now.
You say that your belief in God does not harm humanity, yet society faces the same breed of scientific censorship today. Stem cell research, if allowed to thrive outside of the arbitrary moral code set by the religious right and perpetuated by our democratic mode of government, we would surely have the cures to many physical and mental ailments.
So we have one genius with an IQ of 151 and another with an IQ of 160? Since when did the average geek IQ reach such high levels?
I'd hate to burst everyone's bubble, but online IQ tests are not authentic. They inflate your score so you will be more tempted to purchase their custom intelligence profile. A girl I dated in high school got a score of 125 using one of these sites, yet she wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed (but the bell curve peeks at an IQ of 100!!). I iterate again, these online IQ tests are definitely NOT accurate and can be SEVERELY INFLATED.
Just as my observation, if every slashdotter's posted IQ were to be taken as fact, then /. would be the greatest think-tank on the planet today, and indeed the greatest in all of human history. To put it all in perspective, an IQ of 135 is in the 99th percentile.
Yes that is true. But putting a black mark on a student's record wrongfully will get the school sued and the school will lose, especially if the student didn't fight back. Its all about protecting one's self from bodily harm. When schools harbor a culture of violence, they bear some responsibility when a student gets hurt.
Alot of us have made websites like this. I made one against my high school administration by posting a 22 page journal (single spaced type), which was SEVERLY damning to those involved (the site was appropriately titled "My Story"). But I wasn't suspended or anything because I posted the site live one day after graduation :-)
The site was actually kind of famous. I got around 400-5000 visits to the site every month. I feel kind of bad now for taking it down after 3 years. . .
Actually, the school could be held liable for indiferent negligence in applying the conduct code and infliction of emotional distress. Also, if you were getting jumped ALOT and school officials saw it and did nothing, they could be held liable for not protecting you from harassment, assault, battery, etc.
Schools are responsible for your safety. If they fail to keep you safe, of punish you because you try to protect yourself from danger, then they can be held liable for SEVERE damages.