If you're going to have a system in place that automatically catches speeders it has to be able to function by deducing a cars speed either instantaneously or over a very short distance (shorter then the distance between two lights). Anything less then that is impractical, it won't catch enough people to be worth half of what it would cost to maintain let alone implement.
There are cameras on some of the stoplights in my city that catch people running red lights. They snap a photo of the liscence plate and then mail you a ticket along with a copy of the photo.
The problem with automating that process for a radar gun is that radar guns don't inform an officer of which car it's tracking. The cop points it in the general direction of traffic and it displays the highest speed that it detects. It's up to the cop to determine which of the cars in traffic is travelling fastest and thus corresponds to the speed being displayed. That judgement can't easily be automated.
I would think it's quite the opposite; that scientists are inherrintly very creative. But that creativity doesn't always come out in activities that your average bloke thinks of as "creative".
A lot of folks (to use a Bushism to cover being too lazy to research exactly who) refer to the twentieth century as one long world war that just cooled off in a few places.
I don't know as much history as I should, but I have a feeling that that remains true about a much longer period of time then the 20th century.
About Jesus's crusafixion. If we accept the dates you listed as accurate, in which of those books, written before 500 BC, is it predicted that Jesus would be crucified. What is the actual wording that makes this prediction?
If the bible were falsifiable and made genuine predictions don't you think that fact would be a little more well known?
And where are you getting that the bible predicted crusifiction well before the time of Jesus? I have always heard it from every pastor and religious person that I've ever met that the bibles were written during the lifetimes of the people who knew Jesus. Some historians believe it was written much later, but I've never heard anyone say it would be written much earlier. Historical datings put the Gospel of Mark as the oldest work of the new testament written at about 70 AD.
Please, tell me one concrete prophecy that the bible has made, a prophecy that verafiably came true well after the bibles were written. Then we can talk about falsifiability.
I suffered through sunday school once, I have no need to do it again. And I never said that you should learn more about evolution, I don't know a whole lot about it either, it's not my area of science.
Anyway, the bible isn't falsifiable. Of the bit I read from those links none made any concrete predictions.
And I have never made any effort to prove that the bible is wrong. You cannot disprove something that is not falsifiable. All I have done is tried to point out the fallacies used by people who claim to have "proof" that the bible is true.
I didn't read through those links you gave me, it's late and they were too long. If you wouldn't mind cutting and pasting the section that you consider to be a prophecy I'll definitly take a look. But as far as I've heard most of the bible is the story of Jesus Christ and his diciples, not prophecy. And as for prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. I have never ever heard it said that any of the books mentioning Jesus were written before his birth, and the fact that one book about the bible makes a prediction about Jesus and then other books says that the prediction came true is circular reasoning. You're still trying to use your belief that the bible is true to prove that the bible is true.
BTW, crusifixtion was a very common form of execution from about the 5th century BC to the 5th century AD.
The bible may give you a consistent datapoint in terms of explaning known facts. But so does me saying the universe poped into existance yesterday and everyone in the universe poped into existance with a full set of memories, the earth poped into existance with the fossile record fully developed, etc. etc.
It is for this reason that the test of a theory does not lie in simply "is it consistant with itself and with known facts", but also in making testable predictions that could falsify the theory. I don't know enough about evolution to argue for or against it, but even if we assume evolution is false the bible is no better or worse off for it. The claims in the bible stand on just as solid ground as my claim that the world popped into existance yesterday, or the claim that we're all just brains in vats with electrodes feeding us the information that we falsely assume comes from our senses. All those theories are fully consistent and explain all the evidence, but none of them are falsifiable.
I don't know enought about macroevolution to argue for or against it, but I do prefer evolution over the bible because I know that if it does turn out to be wrong then we will figure that out eventually. It's pretty hotly debated right now with a lot of research going on. Whatever it is that they're arguing about, eventually someone will find conclusive evidence for or against it. If scientists are wrong about evolution, they will eventually show themselves to be wrong. But if priests are wrong about religion, they will never know.
Falsifiability is required in science. Religion is not falsifiable. So teaching creationism in a science class is absurd.
But if the Bible is false and God does not exist, then how can Micah predict the location of Jesus' birth (Micah 5:2)? How can David describe Jesus' crucifixion in Psalm 22? How can Jesus predict His betrayer and also the length of His burial (three days and three nights, sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday)?
They can't, because the bible is false. You can't use examples within the bible to prove the bible. That's like me asking you, if the fairy tale is false, then how did hansel and grettle find their way back? They must have laid breadcrums! You just can't use examples from the bible as proof of the bible, it's circular reasoning.
And as for the contradictions in the bible they're a lot more signifigant then the color of a robe. They disagree of how many days it took to create the earth, how many days it was till the resurection. Some very signifigant disagreements.
Now, I will give you that contradictions within the bible do not disproove the bible. If you believe that god exists then the contradictions can be explained as resulting from innacuracies when man wrote the bible, and not from innacuracies of the events themselves. But while it doesn't disproove the bibles factuality, it does invalidate the argument that the bibles consistancy is the best argument for it's correctness. Which is the argument I posted that link as a responce to.
If I claim that there is an invisible fairy floating above your head, and that it's too fast for you to be able to touch it or perform any measurement of its existance, then I've made a claim that is not falsifiable.
That doesn't quite follow. Murder is an obvious social evil that entails physical harm of someone against their will. Homosexuality is consensual and doesn't entail that physical harm. If you believe that homosexuality causes harm (I personally don't) you must admit that said harm comes in a social form. That sets the debate on quite a different level then that of murder.
Don't have to. Disbelief is the default state. You certainly don't expect us to believe everything we hear do you? No, it is much more reasonable to default to skepticism, if it's a good theory then enough evidence of its truth can be found to sway us for skepticism towards belief. The fact that you cannot prove your case does not place the burden upon us. You are asserting the existance of something.
*cough*
This is ridiculus. Even IF the bible were self consistent that still wouldn't mean anything. I can think up of plenty arguments for why things happen that are both self consistent and utterly riddiculus. Science and philosophy are two seperate subjects for a reason. Religious topics should be discussed in philosophy classes, not science classes.
I don't think the effects of relativity can really be called time travel. Just like falling off a building can't really be called flying. I think round trips have to possible before you can justifiably call it time travel.
The difference being that one is forbidden by the laws of physics, where one was just a lamens argument put forth by those who had no education on the subject. Wanna guess which is which?
I always figured the constants were evidence of the other side of things. If the universe really had such a loving creator he would have done us future mathematicians a solid and made all the damn constants integers.
All kidding aside. This just goes to show that anyone claiming proof of intelligent design is off their rocker. If you view the world through you I.D. goggles you'll see a lot of things that agree and make sense. What you forget is that they agree and makes sense with all the other theories too.
Mathematics is not a careful march down a well-cleared highway, but a journey into a strange wilderness, where the explorers often get lost. Rigor should be a signal to the historian that the maps have been made, and the real explorers have gone elsewhere. -W.S. Anglin
So a relationship being reproduction impaired is enough for you to say it's lesser. And it is lesser enough to not qualify as a "true" marriage and thus not deserve the same rights as a "true" marriage. Is that what you're argument is? If so, then why does the reproduction test only get applied to gays? Certainly their are straight couples who don't have the capability, physically, to reproduce. Does their marriage qualify as a "true" marriage?
And I have to disagree a little with you on the fact that homosexuals are inherrently confused. I've known people that are perfectly well adjusted happy individuals and are gay. I've also known a few gay people who do give off the confused vibe, but do you blame them? They've grown up in a society that is largely unaccepting of them. It reminds me of a pbs series that showed an experiment a kindergarden teacher did with her class. She took turns making some kids the prefered kids and some kids the unprefered kids (based on superficials like eye color). The same kids were more well behaved and scored higher on tests when they were the prefered kids then when they were unprefered. The idea was to teach racial diversity but I think it applies just as well here. If you live in an enviornment that is not supportive of who you are then there will be psychological reprocussions. I think any confusion found in gays is a result of growing up and living in a pregudiced enviornment, I don't think it's indicative of any fundamental psychological problems involved in homosexuality.
I don't see that there is any difference. The only concrete difference you've mentioned is that gay couples can't concieve a child; but neither can many straight couples and knowone would think ill of them for it. The difference between black and white couples is both as obvious, as superficial, and as irrelevent as the difference between gay and straight couples.
My point is this: It's wrong to treat others as lesser then yourself when they haven't done any harm.
I believe that point applies equally well to the difference between black and white as it does to the difference between gay and straight.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to have a system in place that automatically catches speeders it has to be able to function by deducing a cars speed either instantaneously or over a very short distance (shorter then the distance between two lights). Anything less then that is impractical, it won't catch enough people to be worth half of what it would cost to maintain let alone implement.
The problem with automating that process for a radar gun is that radar guns don't inform an officer of which car it's tracking. The cop points it in the general direction of traffic and it displays the highest speed that it detects. It's up to the cop to determine which of the cars in traffic is travelling fastest and thus corresponds to the speed being displayed. That judgement can't easily be automated.
I would think it's quite the opposite; that scientists are inherrintly very creative. But that creativity doesn't always come out in activities that your average bloke thinks of as "creative".
I don't know as much history as I should, but I have a feeling that that remains true about a much longer period of time then the 20th century.
How does impartiality breed inequality and injustice?
About Jesus's crusafixion. If we accept the dates you listed as accurate, in which of those books, written before 500 BC, is it predicted that Jesus would be crucified. What is the actual wording that makes this prediction?
And where are you getting that the bible predicted crusifiction well before the time of Jesus? I have always heard it from every pastor and religious person that I've ever met that the bibles were written during the lifetimes of the people who knew Jesus. Some historians believe it was written much later, but I've never heard anyone say it would be written much earlier. Historical datings put the Gospel of Mark as the oldest work of the new testament written at about 70 AD.
Please, tell me one concrete prophecy that the bible has made, a prophecy that verafiably came true well after the bibles were written. Then we can talk about falsifiability.
Anyway, the bible isn't falsifiable. Of the bit I read from those links none made any concrete predictions.
And I have never made any effort to prove that the bible is wrong. You cannot disprove something that is not falsifiable. All I have done is tried to point out the fallacies used by people who claim to have "proof" that the bible is true.
BTW, crusifixtion was a very common form of execution from about the 5th century BC to the 5th century AD.
It is for this reason that the test of a theory does not lie in simply "is it consistant with itself and with known facts", but also in making testable predictions that could falsify the theory. I don't know enough about evolution to argue for or against it, but even if we assume evolution is false the bible is no better or worse off for it. The claims in the bible stand on just as solid ground as my claim that the world popped into existance yesterday, or the claim that we're all just brains in vats with electrodes feeding us the information that we falsely assume comes from our senses. All those theories are fully consistent and explain all the evidence, but none of them are falsifiable.
I don't know enought about macroevolution to argue for or against it, but I do prefer evolution over the bible because I know that if it does turn out to be wrong then we will figure that out eventually. It's pretty hotly debated right now with a lot of research going on. Whatever it is that they're arguing about, eventually someone will find conclusive evidence for or against it. If scientists are wrong about evolution, they will eventually show themselves to be wrong. But if priests are wrong about religion, they will never know.
Falsifiability is required in science. Religion is not falsifiable. So teaching creationism in a science class is absurd.
A bit like worrying that a pickpocket in China is gonna get my wallet here in america, don't you think?
The odds of life being wiped out by a burst like this are pretty low. We're more likely to die of our own doing first I think.
They can't, because the bible is false. You can't use examples within the bible to prove the bible. That's like me asking you, if the fairy tale is false, then how did hansel and grettle find their way back? They must have laid breadcrums! You just can't use examples from the bible as proof of the bible, it's circular reasoning.
And as for the contradictions in the bible they're a lot more signifigant then the color of a robe. They disagree of how many days it took to create the earth, how many days it was till the resurection. Some very signifigant disagreements.
Now, I will give you that contradictions within the bible do not disproove the bible. If you believe that god exists then the contradictions can be explained as resulting from innacuracies when man wrote the bible, and not from innacuracies of the events themselves. But while it doesn't disproove the bibles factuality, it does invalidate the argument that the bibles consistancy is the best argument for it's correctness. Which is the argument I posted that link as a responce to.
But that doesn't make it any less absurd.
That doesn't quite follow. Murder is an obvious social evil that entails physical harm of someone against their will. Homosexuality is consensual and doesn't entail that physical harm. If you believe that homosexuality causes harm (I personally don't) you must admit that said harm comes in a social form. That sets the debate on quite a different level then that of murder.
Don't have to. Disbelief is the default state. You certainly don't expect us to believe everything we hear do you? No, it is much more reasonable to default to skepticism, if it's a good theory then enough evidence of its truth can be found to sway us for skepticism towards belief. The fact that you cannot prove your case does not place the burden upon us. You are asserting the existance of something.
*cough* This is ridiculus. Even IF the bible were self consistent that still wouldn't mean anything. I can think up of plenty arguments for why things happen that are both self consistent and utterly riddiculus. Science and philosophy are two seperate subjects for a reason. Religious topics should be discussed in philosophy classes, not science classes.
in a philosophy class.
I don't think the effects of relativity can really be called time travel. Just like falling off a building can't really be called flying. I think round trips have to possible before you can justifiably call it time travel.
The difference being that one is forbidden by the laws of physics, where one was just a lamens argument put forth by those who had no education on the subject. Wanna guess which is which?
All kidding aside. This just goes to show that anyone claiming proof of intelligent design is off their rocker. If you view the world through you I.D. goggles you'll see a lot of things that agree and make sense. What you forget is that they agree and makes sense with all the other theories too.
I think this was done for religious reasons, not ethical ones. They are, unfortunately, not the same thing.
Mathematics is not a careful march down a well-cleared highway, but a journey into a strange wilderness, where the explorers often get lost. Rigor should be a signal to the historian that the maps have been made, and the real explorers have gone elsewhere. -W.S. Anglin
And I have to disagree a little with you on the fact that homosexuals are inherrently confused. I've known people that are perfectly well adjusted happy individuals and are gay. I've also known a few gay people who do give off the confused vibe, but do you blame them? They've grown up in a society that is largely unaccepting of them. It reminds me of a pbs series that showed an experiment a kindergarden teacher did with her class. She took turns making some kids the prefered kids and some kids the unprefered kids (based on superficials like eye color). The same kids were more well behaved and scored higher on tests when they were the prefered kids then when they were unprefered. The idea was to teach racial diversity but I think it applies just as well here. If you live in an enviornment that is not supportive of who you are then there will be psychological reprocussions. I think any confusion found in gays is a result of growing up and living in a pregudiced enviornment, I don't think it's indicative of any fundamental psychological problems involved in homosexuality.
My point is this: It's wrong to treat others as lesser then yourself when they haven't done any harm.
I believe that point applies equally well to the difference between black and white as it does to the difference between gay and straight.
Same thing that's wrong with black couples and white couples having different rights and priviledges.