You keep disparaging evolution as "only a theory" but fail to grasp that all of science is only a collection of theories, which are more or less strongly supported by the evidence available, and is universally subject to falsification by future evidence.
We agree, but you don't maintain that line of thought.
You claim there was no proof offered, yet my original post gave a referenced a mountain of evidence from animal taxonomy, morphology, the fossil record, and genetics, that would lead any un-biased, reasonable person to accept that the theory of Evolution matches and unifies many lines of evidence in a convincing way, and that is all that people who "believe" in Evolution actually assert. That it is the best scientific explanation offered so far, in exactly the same way that Newton's laws, or Einstein's Theory are the best explanations for other phenomena. Are there holes? sure! Got a better idea? no. It's that simple
Which indicates evidence, which I don't discount, but not proof. Evidence to support a theory is not proof. It's evidence. As we stack this up it makes a theory more or less acceptable. Hopefully you would agree with that assessment, and also agree that you are not using consistent logic.
That said, the missing link in evolution theory is rather massive. I gave a good example of an alternative and competing theory previously with people that believe a Prometheus type event is required to generate a new species. I don't think one is required but as with creationism, it's impossible to discount that theory without evidence that a new species can evolve from a current species. Don't spin on the "but the evidence" fragment of thinking, take my statement very literally just as it is. I don't question the evidence we have, I question the evidence that is lacking.
I'm rather unclear on what you are trying to accomplish in your posts. Are you trying to get me to claim that evolution is proven, when it's not? Are you trying to get me to claim that my belief is more rational than a person believing in an alternative theory, when that is irrational? Are you simply trying to justify your own belief? Are you trying to get me to claim we have no proven science when in fact we have tremendous amounts of proven science? (Google "proven scientific theory" to start)
Science has not been convinced that the whole of the theory of evolution has been proven, but that it seems to be a strong theory. Until there is proof, you and I can _believe_ in the theory. A person that wishes to believe in an alternative theory is not worse than anyone else, assuming the theory has some plausibility (refrain from reducto ad absurdom in considering the term plausibility). They are not better than anyone else either, neither am I, neither are you.
I agree with your assessment. I'll just point out that any action requires we first get out and teach people what's wrong. As long as they believe main stream media we remain in the current state.
So taking one example of a theory means that we have no proven science, by your own words. I think a quick google search will show you that I was correct that we have mountains of proven science, and that you are simply wrong. Complex theories, such as gravity, always come with a certain amount of "proof", and require work to disprove the accepted theory.
Gravity, like Evolution, is not something proven and I'll agree that both are theories. That fact does not indicate that we have no proven science as you falsely claim.
There is a huge difference between Gravity and Evolution however, which is that gravity can be measured. What is lacking from evolution is any form of measurement, and even observation (as we can do with gravity) is rather subjective. Yes, we can observe differences in species but we have not observed anything becoming a "new" species. There are some false claims to that effect, and I'll suggest you read their work before using them as any evidence. I did my due diligence and expect others to do the same if we are to have any intellectual discussion..
Trying to pick and choose which definitions of theory to use still ignores the point, so I'll ignore that portion of your post. I stated "evolution is not proven", and you claimed that nothing can be proven backed up by various versions of the word "theory" which I never, EVER, called into question.
If you will not accept any proof offerred, then it is unfalsifiable, and by definition, not science. If no-one can win an argument, that doesn't mean both sides are justified. It is possible that one side is simply unreasonable.
What proof? That is the point, that there is substantial evidence still needed. You in fact keep repeatedly claiming that nothing can be proven, then tell me to "accept the proof". Seriously, do you practice broken logic and circular reasoning or is it accidental? No, don't answer that question as it was completely rhetorical showing that you can't maintain a line of rational and reasonable thought.
Clipping to keep the text in a reasonably reviewable state.
That's repetition, not contradiction. I say there is no proof in science, then I say there is no proof in science. Though, in your defense, I made a typo: I should have capitalized "logic" as "Logic", so perhaps that threw you off
That's not what you said, and changing 'logic' to 'Logic' makes no difference. You are first claiming that math is not science, which is wrong. Next you are claiming that "logic" is a field of science or subject of science, which is absolutely wrong (take an entry level Philosophy class if you are that lost). Lastly, you claim that no other field of science has proven anything which is also wrong.
Your next paragraph seems rather incoherent, so let me get this straight. You don't agree that we can ever prove evolution, so I guess the work that we have done on genetics proving large portions of the complete theory are not proven. Hrm, something is wrong with that line of thinking.
In your gravity example, by your own thoughts you must accept Newton's Law as factual. The people that started looking at merging Einstein's work and Newton's work were heathens and of course those guys that showed where Einstein's work fails are simply blasphemous! And of course any theory we have of gravity, even when it does not work, must be proven by your way of thinking. Your failure to contemplate theories of gravity in relation to evolution are not shocking, but demonstrate you really don't care to think.
Further, you can't take something as extraordinarily complex as "gravity" or "evolution" and compare them to "2+2" or "hot", or even the same. Sure, we can look at various creatures and know they are not the same, but we don't magically have knowledge of how they came about. We gave it a term called "evolution" which encompasses a whole mountain of stuff. Many components of that are probably true, but other components are still just theory and speculation. Claiming otherwise is no benefit to anyone.
Your last paragraph shows that you lack any real level of intellect on the subjects, or philosophy. I have explained my position without resorting to childish fallacy to get my point across. You continually lie, distort, present ad hominem, and ignore the point. Calling me a troll in light of those truths is laughable, and goes back to my original statement. Pot, meet Kettle. Then end.
This, but a bit more. It is imperative that we, intellectuals, start waking people up. The "Republican" vs. "Democrat" argument is futile, and the wrong argument. It has not worked for nearly 50 years because both of these parties are the same team. Long ago Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" was scoffed as 'conspiracy theory' but much of what he predicted has come to fruition and much of what he speculated at the time has been proven to be true (in addition of course to the mountain of facts he presented).
Media (TV and most major papers) have been monopolized and polarized on hiding what has been happening through misinformation campaigns, and in some cases simply ignoring topics. People that watch what is called "News" are polarized on "their side" because they are taught to do so, and incited to do so. It helps the entrenched cowards maintain power, and they don't want it any other way.
Points being, that first you are absolutely right. Next point is how to start to unravel the entrenched power. Many people today get it, they see the impact of this entrenched power. They need confirmation and direction.
Drivers license or license plate? There is a huge difference, and I guarantee that Texas does not require insurance to get a drivers license. For a license plate, most states require auto-insurance.
Are you seriously trying to claim that we have no proven science?
Yes. So are all scientists.
Then in your last paragraph you state.
Absolutely. Math and logic are able to show proofs all of the time. But science never does.
I think Biology, Physics, and Chemistry have as much proven work as math does. As to Logic, well, I'm not sure you know what 'Logic' is if you are claiming it's a field of science.
Dog breeding is not the missing evidence for evolution, and neither is a flu virus. I'm pretty sure that they point in the right direction, but that does not get us the missing proof. I never said evolution was wrong, in fact quite the opposite I stated that I believe the theory will be proven in time. I stated it's not proven, and for some reason you refuse to accept that. Do I get to burn in hell for not believing like you do?
I'm guessing that you agree that we do have proven science, so your initial assertion that everything is hypothesis is wrong so you dropped that argument. I have no idea why you then point to an OP-ED piece to describe "Theory" instead of using the definition we have in dictionaries and defined by a couple thousand years of science. Are you trying to redefine the word, or do you accept that a theory is not proven? Do you also accept that we do have proven science and not everything is theory or hypothesis as you initially stated?
I'm ignoring the creation link, because I never argued creation and claimed repeatedly that I believe evolution is correct but lacking some important proof. Is it your position that anyone that recognizes evolution as a theory instead of fact must be a creationist? How is that thought different than a person of religion having a position that a non-believer in their faith is a witch or satanist?
Let me go a slightly different direction to hopefully make the point. Why do some scientists and cosmologists that think aliens may have modified DNA to make humans? The reason that the theory is plausible is because we lack some critical validation data in the theory of evolution. Namely, that we have not seen a species evolve into a new species, we have only seen species change within itself. To get from one thing to another thing, DNA has to grow in length (not completely accurate, but should be close enough for an example). Extending DNA is something we have no proof can happen, and reproduction/hybridization demonstrates that its not a simple process.
Are those people wacky creationists like those religious people, or are they okay because their belief is in science fiction which contains the word "science"?
Personally I don't believe in aliens so don't believe alien have ever visited Earth, so discount the interdiction theory. I'm pretty sure that evolution is the right theory. I don't call those people whacky any more than I call a believer in a deity whacky because I lack the proof to show them wrong. There is a chance that they are right and I'm wrong, even if that chance is small. Until I have proof preaching my belief as better than theirs is foolish because nobody can win the argument.
Are you seriously trying to claim that we have no proven science?
Claims about the validity of a theory are meaningless.
No, claims about validity are critical. If something appears to be nonsense, you would not go down the path and explore. If it looks like a dead end, usually it's noted as a dead end and put on a back burner. Often this leads to new "Science" as we have to build tools for experiments which leads to new discoveries and new areas of science to investigate. If it seems to be an absurd exploration, it's forgotten. If I am wrong show me a group of scientists working on proving the earth is flat, looking for the deity responsible for lighting, trying to figure out where the moon goes at night, working on witchcraft detection, etc...
Just like when someone told you a scientific theory means "a hypothesis unproven due to lack of data" and you believed them without verifying it yourself?
See my first comment regarding your false statement that we can't prove anything. We surely can, and do so all the time. That statement is reducto ad absurdum at best, delusional at worst.
No, it's not a troll. It's a rational critical thought. Do I really need to show you the Oxford or Websters American dictionary to show you that theory does not match proof? Or to show that theory and hypothesis are similar yet not the same, and you throwing out a red herring trying to change the points I made to whether it's Theory or Hypothesis makes no difference to my point?
No matter how much evidence piles up, it never graduates to anything else in practice.
False, we prove science all the time. Your assertion that nothing can be proven and everything is hypothesis is absurd. I suggest you look up the definition and explanation for the scientific method before continuing down such a path, and look at what we can prove. Sure, proof takes time and we make mistakes along the way, but we have mountains of proven science.
They can date those fossils by using many dating techniques, and can determine that they are very old. that the younger fossils show up higher in the strata than the older ones.
Having similar fossils does not prove evolution. You say that same exact thing right after this quote, which matches the point I made. Not that the theory is bad, but that looking at fossils does not prove evolution. Fossils are good for the theory, but they don't constitute proof as you state in different words, perhaps not intentionally.
Humans have genes that are 98% identical to those of chimpanzees, but only 50% identical to those of bananas
I often state the same thing, since it also does not prove evolution. The 98% number is often used as a misleading number. 98% of a billion is not very much, or enough difference to be rather substantial. All living things share roughly 50% DNA, but that does not indicate that animals came from fruits or that we share a common ancestor. I think it's more likely that living things absorb what we digest, which tends to be very similar. Most of us have to drink water, or we live in it. Most of us eat some thing that eats plants, if not the plants themselves. We have proof that our diets modifies our DNA, as does the climate we live in, the stress we are under, etc.. So as with above, it helps the theory but does not constitute proof. Correlation is not equal to causation, and all that. Our DNA is rather complex, and we are relatively new to knowing it exists let alone being able to understand how it works. We can see and understand some, but not all, which is especially true when trying to evolve a primate to human.
but we can go beyond fossils, taxonomies, and genetics into innumerable examples from the living world that make perfect sense through an evolutionary lens. take a look at this:
Why are you trying to argue for a theory I agree with, and simply pointed out the fact that it is a theory? Do you understand that until we gain more proof it will remain a theory, so claiming "it's proven" is wrong until that time? No matter how much hypothesis you throw at it, it's not proven. I would be willing to bet I have read at least as much on the subject as you, if not more. I happen to agree with the theory, but recognize that without proof trying to argue a belief in the theory as better than a religious person is no different than two religious people arguing.
Perhaps you personally believe it's proven and don't want more data. You are not alone, but that is a belief and not a scientific point of view (which claims it's a good theory with lots of promise). You having convictions in that belief is different from a person that believes a deity did it how exactly? Think really hard about that one, because it's not any different.
So back to what I closed with, claiming your belief is better than someone else' belief only works with company that believes like you do. I'm not belittling your belief, telling you it's wrong, or asking you to question your belief. I'm suggesting that you recognize your belief for what it is, and understand that it conflicts with other beliefs. When we have the missing proof, then we can all jump up and down yelling 'told ya so'.
You are extrapolating way too much to be coherent. We can break down your point into 2 categories. Hardware and Software. For the sake of debate, let us assume that a BIOS, Firmware, PROM, etc.. is Hardware. Why we can do that is because "normally" you can't edit PROM or firmware on a machine that's running. ILO/LOM/ILOM/ALOM/DRAC, etc.. today give some level of access to that software. Personally I'm not a fan of those systems without in depth analysis of what they are, how they are built, etc... They have a purpose, but add insecurity.
We (I have pointed it out for years as have others) know that hardware can be compromised. I'm sure you can look up older posts I made on this site that point this out, though the concern was more that China having access to the hardware at a low level since they are building it could change the hardware enough to compromise it before it made it's way back to the US. That is still a concern, but we now know that our own Government has been slipping in enough back doors that it's not a real point. For all we know, the NSA and China may be sharing the same back doors for the same purposes.
As you point out, when hardware is compromised it does not matter what OS you have, or what software you run. You are pwned from the time you turn on the machine. This type of access is difficult, but not impossible. Infect a machine in the factory, and every box being shipped is then compromised (I think we all remember viruses being shipped on various CDs, DVDs, and hard drives from MFRs. TFA makes it appear as if you need physical access to every single host, and that is simply not true.
Then we have OS and Software, which is the easier layer to hack because it requires no physical access. The person I responded to claimed that OSS is less secure or the same security as closed source. That is what my argument is against.
I never claimed it was fool proof or secure, I claimed it was better than closed source because independent people without ties to a watcher, can watch the watcher.
Even people that claim to be "educated" fail at science.
Last I checked, "Science" and "The Scientific Method" had numerous requirements. If you wish to claim that humans evolved from other primates, or dogs evolved from another species, or cats from another, we lack proof. This is why "Evolution" is called a "Theory".
I'm not claiming it's a bad theory, or wrong, I'm claiming we lack some critical data. It's amazing how people claim that the theory is proven without doing any of the work to find out it's not. They believe what they are told, just like the people on the other side of the building claiming a deity did it.
It is very easy to get into a Pot vs. Kettle arrangement when dismissing other people's beliefs with your own. I'd rather spend my time working with evidence and trying to find the missing proof than try and convince people that their belief is wrong while working on my own. There has been some very cool science working toward answers, but the fact remains that we don't have all of the answers.
Exactly. The Supreme Court already ruled you can be forced to contract with a private company for many different things. That cat is out of the bag.
Expect more of this in the future.
More? Or did you miss that pretty much every state requires you to hold at least liability insurance to get a drivers' license? And that certainly isn't even the only case before ACA.
What? What planet are you living on? There is no insurance requirement to get a drivers license, and no requirement for a drivers license for that matter. Most states will require you to have insurance in order to register your car, but that is not the same thing as having Drivers License or State ID.
I'd say the destruction of Iranian centrifuges was a master stroke, personally.
Why? Because the same people that destroyed their infrastructure told you that Iran is "evil"? Does "Iran = evil" mean that we should act in an evil fashion? Is Iran as evil as people tell you? Personally I no longer believe that line of rhetoric (30 years ago I did). I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. I also believe that we should treat people equally, regardless of Religion, Race, or gender.
For the duration of my life, which is longer than most people on this site, I have heard about how Iran is "evil" and plans to take over the world. I heard about how they hate Israel, but have never seen them do anything outside of their borders. They yelled a lot when Mossad allegedly destroyed infrastructure, but I have not seen the Republican guard blow shit up in Israel or even be accused. How "bad" or "good" the treatment of their own people is becomes subjective to the people that live there, not my opinion, and that treatment is based on their Religion. The US denounces Iran and their beliefs, yet we have no problem with Talmud Jewish beliefs that much of Israel follows (not to be confused with Rabbinical Jewish beliefs).
I'm not claiming that Iran does not do wrong things, but as a whole and in comparison to the US it's not even close. We went to war with Iraq on a completely fabricated premise killing millions. We helped a revolt in Libya, Egypt, are helping in Syria. We give arms to some 'terrorists' and launch Hellfire missiles at others. We have soldiers that will tell you stories about how the poppy growth in Afghanistan has boomed under US control, yet under the Taliban it was outlawed and production was virtually stopped. Today world wide heroine use/production/trafficking is killing more people than the Taliban ever did.
I'm also not claiming that Israel is "bad" because I don't live there so only have 2nd hand knowledge.
The point is, that the US is not some "justice" force out there righting wrongs and correcting injustice. Quite the contrary, we are causing more harm than helping in numerous countries. We, the intellectuals, really need to challenge handed down propaganda. Instead of accepting it, try to question it.
Our founding fathers had a mountain of quotes I could refer to, but I won't. We were supposed to be the example for Free Society, Republican Government, and tolerance. We were not supposed to be a thug.
You see, there is a big flaw in your point. _IF_ the only developers were in the US, you may have a better point. OpenSource is not just coded in the US, and the eyes looking at the code are all over. I think for a while you had a level of trust among OpenSource crowds that everyone was equally altruistic and freedom loving. I am pretty sure that when the leaks came out a few years ago about the NSA jacking encryption that trust evaporated pretty quickly.
What you may want to believe is that all of these coders are here doing "Merikah!" great favors, or at least looking the other way because.. you know, "Merikah!". Guys in Germany don't have any devotion to that cause, and won't be complicit.
So now, that level of trust that people had is gone. Not that OpenSource coders are all out trying to screw each other (as we see with 3 letter agencies and closed source companies), but there is a whole lot more scrutiny. As it should be, and like it was 10-15 years ago.
You can _never_ scrutinize closed source code. That point I agree with, and yes we should all assume that closed source systems ship compromised. As with the paragraph above, we used to assume that not very long ago. This is how we started to catch on to how shitty MS was (remember the ACK wars?).
Except that the "Local" paper will never have the budget to tackle big stories. Reporters may be real journalists with the best intentions, they may be able to hit local issues which impact your life, but they can't get to DC to investigate the NSA which has more impact on your life than city council allowing a Hooters to be built.
Large cities used to be able to do this to some degree. New York and Washington DC papers were right there, so there was no need to pump money into travel. For other "Newspapers" the "Big" issues required National support.
Rehashing the obvious here, but to make sure there is no confusion the rehash is not bad in my opinion. What we have seen in the last 10 years is the complete take over of all national media. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, and all of their variants all work for the same people, and it's not the average citizen. They all produce the same AP stories and FUD. Enough people distrust them that ratings have plummeted and Blog sites have made huge leaps in readership. Sites like Infowars, Mother Jones, Drudge Report, and Natural News have exploded. Sure, some of their articles are biased just as bad as "Main Stream Media" in the opposite direction, but it gives an alternative that "may" be closer to what people see as true. For example, we see the down side of the 2nd amendment on MSM and the upside on alternative sites. Alex Jones appearing on Piers Morgan's show as a blockbuster event for both outlets (more akin to Jerry Springer than "News")
Whistle Blowers from numerous large News Papers have told us that they have been taken over as well, in terms of what they can and can't report about. The same monopolization of media with Broadcast News happened with all the large papers.
In reality, we need to figure out how to get back major stations and break the monopolies. Supporting local is a start of that, as long as you can keep them from being taken over when they get too large. Petitioning for legal action to break the monopolies is another step.
Well, if you agree with what I stated claiming that someone else is being overly paranoid is foolish. Unless of course you don't wish for anyone else to know about the game.
Further, recognizing that small structure means that there is no stupidity, accidents, or mistakes. At least not when they (puppet politicians) make decisions. It does not always turn out the way the cowards hiding in shadows want, but it's always at their direction.
Which is more rational? To believe that all of these political mistakes are "poor judgements and accidental" or that they are planned and intentional? Hundreds of advisory people in addition to well educated people making decisions keep making the same mistakes over and over again pushing us further toward a twisted world government and state of tyranny in the USA, and it's all a big "whoops"? I don't find your conclusion very rational, sorry.
Well, you are a third correct. Educating people is the answer, normalizing deviance and immorality is not correct. Morality is required for society, like it or not. If you normalize or diminish one portion of morality, you end up reducing all morality. Stop and think about what morality encompasses. Then look at the immorality we have normalized in the US today. It should be no surprise that there is little to no punishment for things like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and Bankster fraud.
Socrates had most of society pegged, and a functional Government very well defined. We tried to implement it and did pretty well for a while, then corrupt people got into power. It should be no surprise that the majority of people in the US have never read "The Republic" let alone studied the work. Most intellectuals I know that read the work did so after being coached, because even Universities mostly provide a cliff notes distorted version of Socrates' works and not the compete work with proper translation.
Well, SCOTUS is already rigged. No need to have conspiracy theories here. There are lists of their horrible rulings so I'm not going to rehash them here.
I don't have much confidence that the Supreme Court would rule any differently, especially considering other rulings this supreme court has made. Have to try though, and if not time to start throwing people out of office.
If it takes an infant two years with the best "computer" in the universe that we know of to learn how to talk, why should we think it will take a machine at even the top-end of the supercomputer scale (which can't have as many "connections" as the average human brain) any less?
While I kind of agree with the point, it absolutely doesn't take 2 years to learn how to talk. It takes a few months to learn to talk (which would include learning that sounds have meaning). Just like it doesn't take over a year to learn to walk, it takes a couple weeks. Interestingly, they learn some very complex things all at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep disparaging evolution as "only a theory" but fail to grasp that all of science is only a collection of theories, which are more or less strongly supported by the evidence available, and is universally subject to falsification by future evidence.
We agree, but you don't maintain that line of thought.
You claim there was no proof offered, yet my original post gave a referenced a mountain of evidence from animal taxonomy, morphology, the fossil record, and genetics, that would lead any un-biased, reasonable person to accept that the theory of Evolution matches and unifies many lines of evidence in a convincing way, and that is all that people who "believe" in Evolution actually assert. That it is the best scientific explanation offered so far, in exactly the same way that Newton's laws, or Einstein's Theory are the best explanations for other phenomena. Are there holes? sure! Got a better idea? no. It's that simple
Which indicates evidence, which I don't discount, but not proof. Evidence to support a theory is not proof. It's evidence. As we stack this up it makes a theory more or less acceptable. Hopefully you would agree with that assessment, and also agree that you are not using consistent logic.
That said, the missing link in evolution theory is rather massive. I gave a good example of an alternative and competing theory previously with people that believe a Prometheus type event is required to generate a new species. I don't think one is required but as with creationism, it's impossible to discount that theory without evidence that a new species can evolve from a current species. Don't spin on the "but the evidence" fragment of thinking, take my statement very literally just as it is. I don't question the evidence we have, I question the evidence that is lacking.
I'm rather unclear on what you are trying to accomplish in your posts. Are you trying to get me to claim that evolution is proven, when it's not? Are you trying to get me to claim that my belief is more rational than a person believing in an alternative theory, when that is irrational? Are you simply trying to justify your own belief? Are you trying to get me to claim we have no proven science when in fact we have tremendous amounts of proven science? (Google "proven scientific theory" to start)
Science has not been convinced that the whole of the theory of evolution has been proven, but that it seems to be a strong theory. Until there is proof, you and I can _believe_ in the theory. A person that wishes to believe in an alternative theory is not worse than anyone else, assuming the theory has some plausibility (refrain from reducto ad absurdom in considering the term plausibility). They are not better than anyone else either, neither am I, neither are you.
I agree with your assessment. I'll just point out that any action requires we first get out and teach people what's wrong. As long as they believe main stream media we remain in the current state.
So taking one example of a theory means that we have no proven science, by your own words. I think a quick google search will show you that I was correct that we have mountains of proven science, and that you are simply wrong. Complex theories, such as gravity, always come with a certain amount of "proof", and require work to disprove the accepted theory.
Gravity, like Evolution, is not something proven and I'll agree that both are theories. That fact does not indicate that we have no proven science as you falsely claim.
There is a huge difference between Gravity and Evolution however, which is that gravity can be measured. What is lacking from evolution is any form of measurement, and even observation (as we can do with gravity) is rather subjective. Yes, we can observe differences in species but we have not observed anything becoming a "new" species. There are some false claims to that effect, and I'll suggest you read their work before using them as any evidence. I did my due diligence and expect others to do the same if we are to have any intellectual discussion..
Trying to pick and choose which definitions of theory to use still ignores the point, so I'll ignore that portion of your post. I stated "evolution is not proven", and you claimed that nothing can be proven backed up by various versions of the word "theory" which I never, EVER, called into question.
If you will not accept any proof offerred, then it is unfalsifiable, and by definition, not science. If no-one can win an argument, that doesn't mean both sides are justified. It is possible that one side is simply unreasonable.
What proof? That is the point, that there is substantial evidence still needed. You in fact keep repeatedly claiming that nothing can be proven, then tell me to "accept the proof". Seriously, do you practice broken logic and circular reasoning or is it accidental? No, don't answer that question as it was completely rhetorical showing that you can't maintain a line of rational and reasonable thought.
Clipping to keep the text in a reasonably reviewable state.
That's repetition, not contradiction. I say there is no proof in science, then I say there is no proof in science. Though, in your defense, I made a typo: I should have capitalized "logic" as "Logic", so perhaps that threw you off
That's not what you said, and changing 'logic' to 'Logic' makes no difference. You are first claiming that math is not science, which is wrong. Next you are claiming that "logic" is a field of science or subject of science, which is absolutely wrong (take an entry level Philosophy class if you are that lost). Lastly, you claim that no other field of science has proven anything which is also wrong.
Your next paragraph seems rather incoherent, so let me get this straight. You don't agree that we can ever prove evolution, so I guess the work that we have done on genetics proving large portions of the complete theory are not proven. Hrm, something is wrong with that line of thinking.
In your gravity example, by your own thoughts you must accept Newton's Law as factual. The people that started looking at merging Einstein's work and Newton's work were heathens and of course those guys that showed where Einstein's work fails are simply blasphemous! And of course any theory we have of gravity, even when it does not work, must be proven by your way of thinking. Your failure to contemplate theories of gravity in relation to evolution are not shocking, but demonstrate you really don't care to think.
Further, you can't take something as extraordinarily complex as "gravity" or "evolution" and compare them to "2+2" or "hot", or even the same. Sure, we can look at various creatures and know they are not the same, but we don't magically have knowledge of how they came about. We gave it a term called "evolution" which encompasses a whole mountain of stuff. Many components of that are probably true, but other components are still just theory and speculation. Claiming otherwise is no benefit to anyone.
Your last paragraph shows that you lack any real level of intellect on the subjects, or philosophy. I have explained my position without resorting to childish fallacy to get my point across. You continually lie, distort, present ad hominem, and ignore the point. Calling me a troll in light of those truths is laughable, and goes back to my original statement. Pot, meet Kettle. Then end.
Remember that government sock-puppets get mod points too. History and critical thinking are fickle things and not generally for the masses.
This, but a bit more. It is imperative that we, intellectuals, start waking people up. The "Republican" vs. "Democrat" argument is futile, and the wrong argument. It has not worked for nearly 50 years because both of these parties are the same team. Long ago Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" was scoffed as 'conspiracy theory' but much of what he predicted has come to fruition and much of what he speculated at the time has been proven to be true (in addition of course to the mountain of facts he presented).
Media (TV and most major papers) have been monopolized and polarized on hiding what has been happening through misinformation campaigns, and in some cases simply ignoring topics. People that watch what is called "News" are polarized on "their side" because they are taught to do so, and incited to do so. It helps the entrenched cowards maintain power, and they don't want it any other way.
Points being, that first you are absolutely right. Next point is how to start to unravel the entrenched power. Many people today get it, they see the impact of this entrenched power. They need confirmation and direction.
Drivers license or license plate? There is a huge difference, and I guarantee that Texas does not require insurance to get a drivers license. For a license plate, most states require auto-insurance.
You contradict yourself.
Are you seriously trying to claim that we have no proven science?
Yes. So are all scientists.
Then in your last paragraph you state.
Absolutely. Math and logic are able to show proofs all of the time. But science never does.
I think Biology, Physics, and Chemistry have as much proven work as math does. As to Logic, well, I'm not sure you know what 'Logic' is if you are claiming it's a field of science.
Dog breeding is not the missing evidence for evolution, and neither is a flu virus. I'm pretty sure that they point in the right direction, but that does not get us the missing proof. I never said evolution was wrong, in fact quite the opposite I stated that I believe the theory will be proven in time. I stated it's not proven, and for some reason you refuse to accept that. Do I get to burn in hell for not believing like you do?
I'm guessing that you agree that we do have proven science, so your initial assertion that everything is hypothesis is wrong so you dropped that argument. I have no idea why you then point to an OP-ED piece to describe "Theory" instead of using the definition we have in dictionaries and defined by a couple thousand years of science. Are you trying to redefine the word, or do you accept that a theory is not proven? Do you also accept that we do have proven science and not everything is theory or hypothesis as you initially stated?
I'm ignoring the creation link, because I never argued creation and claimed repeatedly that I believe evolution is correct but lacking some important proof. Is it your position that anyone that recognizes evolution as a theory instead of fact must be a creationist? How is that thought different than a person of religion having a position that a non-believer in their faith is a witch or satanist?
Let me go a slightly different direction to hopefully make the point. Why do some scientists and cosmologists that think aliens may have modified DNA to make humans? The reason that the theory is plausible is because we lack some critical validation data in the theory of evolution. Namely, that we have not seen a species evolve into a new species, we have only seen species change within itself. To get from one thing to another thing, DNA has to grow in length (not completely accurate, but should be close enough for an example). Extending DNA is something we have no proof can happen, and reproduction/hybridization demonstrates that its not a simple process.
Are those people wacky creationists like those religious people, or are they okay because their belief is in science fiction which contains the word "science"?
Personally I don't believe in aliens so don't believe alien have ever visited Earth, so discount the interdiction theory. I'm pretty sure that evolution is the right theory. I don't call those people whacky any more than I call a believer in a deity whacky because I lack the proof to show them wrong. There is a chance that they are right and I'm wrong, even if that chance is small. Until I have proof preaching my belief as better than theirs is foolish because nobody can win the argument.
Claims about the validity of a theory are meaningless.
No, claims about validity are critical. If something appears to be nonsense, you would not go down the path and explore. If it looks like a dead end, usually it's noted as a dead end and put on a back burner. Often this leads to new "Science" as we have to build tools for experiments which leads to new discoveries and new areas of science to investigate. If it seems to be an absurd exploration, it's forgotten. If I am wrong show me a group of scientists working on proving the earth is flat, looking for the deity responsible for lighting, trying to figure out where the moon goes at night, working on witchcraft detection, etc...
Just like when someone told you a scientific theory means "a hypothesis unproven due to lack of data" and you believed them without verifying it yourself?
See my first comment regarding your false statement that we can't prove anything. We surely can, and do so all the time. That statement is reducto ad absurdum at best, delusional at worst.
No, it's not a troll. It's a rational critical thought. Do I really need to show you the Oxford or Websters American dictionary to show you that theory does not match proof? Or to show that theory and hypothesis are similar yet not the same, and you throwing out a red herring trying to change the points I made to whether it's Theory or Hypothesis makes no difference to my point?
No matter how much evidence piles up, it never graduates to anything else in practice.
False, we prove science all the time. Your assertion that nothing can be proven and everything is hypothesis is absurd. I suggest you look up the definition and explanation for the scientific method before continuing down such a path, and look at what we can prove. Sure, proof takes time and we make mistakes along the way, but we have mountains of proven science.
They can date those fossils by using many dating techniques, and can determine that they are very old. that the younger fossils show up higher in the strata than the older ones.
Having similar fossils does not prove evolution. You say that same exact thing right after this quote, which matches the point I made. Not that the theory is bad, but that looking at fossils does not prove evolution. Fossils are good for the theory, but they don't constitute proof as you state in different words, perhaps not intentionally.
Humans have genes that are 98% identical to those of chimpanzees, but only 50% identical to those of bananas
I often state the same thing, since it also does not prove evolution. The 98% number is often used as a misleading number. 98% of a billion is not very much, or enough difference to be rather substantial. All living things share roughly 50% DNA, but that does not indicate that animals came from fruits or that we share a common ancestor. I think it's more likely that living things absorb what we digest, which tends to be very similar. Most of us have to drink water, or we live in it. Most of us eat some thing that eats plants, if not the plants themselves. We have proof that our diets modifies our DNA, as does the climate we live in, the stress we are under, etc.. So as with above, it helps the theory but does not constitute proof. Correlation is not equal to causation, and all that. Our DNA is rather complex, and we are relatively new to knowing it exists let alone being able to understand how it works. We can see and understand some, but not all, which is especially true when trying to evolve a primate to human.
but we can go beyond fossils, taxonomies, and genetics into innumerable examples from the living world that make perfect sense through an evolutionary lens. take a look at this:
Why are you trying to argue for a theory I agree with, and simply pointed out the fact that it is a theory? Do you understand that until we gain more proof it will remain a theory, so claiming "it's proven" is wrong until that time? No matter how much hypothesis you throw at it, it's not proven. I would be willing to bet I have read at least as much on the subject as you, if not more. I happen to agree with the theory, but recognize that without proof trying to argue a belief in the theory as better than a religious person is no different than two religious people arguing.
Perhaps you personally believe it's proven and don't want more data. You are not alone, but that is a belief and not a scientific point of view (which claims it's a good theory with lots of promise). You having convictions in that belief is different from a person that believes a deity did it how exactly? Think really hard about that one, because it's not any different.
So back to what I closed with, claiming your belief is better than someone else' belief only works with company that believes like you do. I'm not belittling your belief, telling you it's wrong, or asking you to question your belief. I'm suggesting that you recognize your belief for what it is, and understand that it conflicts with other beliefs. When we have the missing proof, then we can all jump up and down yelling 'told ya so'.
You are extrapolating way too much to be coherent. We can break down your point into 2 categories. Hardware and Software. For the sake of debate, let us assume that a BIOS, Firmware, PROM, etc.. is Hardware. Why we can do that is because "normally" you can't edit PROM or firmware on a machine that's running. ILO/LOM/ILOM/ALOM/DRAC, etc.. today give some level of access to that software. Personally I'm not a fan of those systems without in depth analysis of what they are, how they are built, etc... They have a purpose, but add insecurity.
We (I have pointed it out for years as have others) know that hardware can be compromised. I'm sure you can look up older posts I made on this site that point this out, though the concern was more that China having access to the hardware at a low level since they are building it could change the hardware enough to compromise it before it made it's way back to the US. That is still a concern, but we now know that our own Government has been slipping in enough back doors that it's not a real point. For all we know, the NSA and China may be sharing the same back doors for the same purposes.
As you point out, when hardware is compromised it does not matter what OS you have, or what software you run. You are pwned from the time you turn on the machine. This type of access is difficult, but not impossible. Infect a machine in the factory, and every box being shipped is then compromised (I think we all remember viruses being shipped on various CDs, DVDs, and hard drives from MFRs. TFA makes it appear as if you need physical access to every single host, and that is simply not true.
Then we have OS and Software, which is the easier layer to hack because it requires no physical access. The person I responded to claimed that OSS is less secure or the same security as closed source. That is what my argument is against.
I never claimed it was fool proof or secure, I claimed it was better than closed source because independent people without ties to a watcher, can watch the watcher.
Even people that claim to be "educated" fail at science.
Last I checked, "Science" and "The Scientific Method" had numerous requirements. If you wish to claim that humans evolved from other primates, or dogs evolved from another species, or cats from another, we lack proof. This is why "Evolution" is called a "Theory".
I'm not claiming it's a bad theory, or wrong, I'm claiming we lack some critical data. It's amazing how people claim that the theory is proven without doing any of the work to find out it's not. They believe what they are told, just like the people on the other side of the building claiming a deity did it.
It is very easy to get into a Pot vs. Kettle arrangement when dismissing other people's beliefs with your own. I'd rather spend my time working with evidence and trying to find the missing proof than try and convince people that their belief is wrong while working on my own. There has been some very cool science working toward answers, but the fact remains that we don't have all of the answers.
Exactly. The Supreme Court already ruled you can be forced to contract with a private company for many different things. That cat is out of the bag. Expect more of this in the future.
More? Or did you miss that pretty much every state requires you to hold at least liability insurance to get a drivers' license? And that certainly isn't even the only case before ACA.
What? What planet are you living on? There is no insurance requirement to get a drivers license, and no requirement for a drivers license for that matter. Most states will require you to have insurance in order to register your car, but that is not the same thing as having Drivers License or State ID.
Care to retract your fabrication and start over?
I'd say the destruction of Iranian centrifuges was a master stroke, personally.
Why? Because the same people that destroyed their infrastructure told you that Iran is "evil"? Does "Iran = evil" mean that we should act in an evil fashion? Is Iran as evil as people tell you? Personally I no longer believe that line of rhetoric (30 years ago I did). I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. I also believe that we should treat people equally, regardless of Religion, Race, or gender.
For the duration of my life, which is longer than most people on this site, I have heard about how Iran is "evil" and plans to take over the world. I heard about how they hate Israel, but have never seen them do anything outside of their borders. They yelled a lot when Mossad allegedly destroyed infrastructure, but I have not seen the Republican guard blow shit up in Israel or even be accused. How "bad" or "good" the treatment of their own people is becomes subjective to the people that live there, not my opinion, and that treatment is based on their Religion. The US denounces Iran and their beliefs, yet we have no problem with Talmud Jewish beliefs that much of Israel follows (not to be confused with Rabbinical Jewish beliefs).
I'm not claiming that Iran does not do wrong things, but as a whole and in comparison to the US it's not even close. We went to war with Iraq on a completely fabricated premise killing millions. We helped a revolt in Libya, Egypt, are helping in Syria. We give arms to some 'terrorists' and launch Hellfire missiles at others. We have soldiers that will tell you stories about how the poppy growth in Afghanistan has boomed under US control, yet under the Taliban it was outlawed and production was virtually stopped. Today world wide heroine use/production/trafficking is killing more people than the Taliban ever did.
I'm also not claiming that Israel is "bad" because I don't live there so only have 2nd hand knowledge.
The point is, that the US is not some "justice" force out there righting wrongs and correcting injustice. Quite the contrary, we are causing more harm than helping in numerous countries. We, the intellectuals, really need to challenge handed down propaganda. Instead of accepting it, try to question it.
Our founding fathers had a mountain of quotes I could refer to, but I won't. We were supposed to be the example for Free Society, Republican Government, and tolerance. We were not supposed to be a thug.
You see, there is a big flaw in your point. _IF_ the only developers were in the US, you may have a better point. OpenSource is not just coded in the US, and the eyes looking at the code are all over. I think for a while you had a level of trust among OpenSource crowds that everyone was equally altruistic and freedom loving. I am pretty sure that when the leaks came out a few years ago about the NSA jacking encryption that trust evaporated pretty quickly.
What you may want to believe is that all of these coders are here doing "Merikah!" great favors, or at least looking the other way because.. you know, "Merikah!". Guys in Germany don't have any devotion to that cause, and won't be complicit.
So now, that level of trust that people had is gone. Not that OpenSource coders are all out trying to screw each other (as we see with 3 letter agencies and closed source companies), but there is a whole lot more scrutiny. As it should be, and like it was 10-15 years ago.
You can _never_ scrutinize closed source code. That point I agree with, and yes we should all assume that closed source systems ship compromised. As with the paragraph above, we used to assume that not very long ago. This is how we started to catch on to how shitty MS was (remember the ACK wars?).
Except that the "Local" paper will never have the budget to tackle big stories. Reporters may be real journalists with the best intentions, they may be able to hit local issues which impact your life, but they can't get to DC to investigate the NSA which has more impact on your life than city council allowing a Hooters to be built.
Large cities used to be able to do this to some degree. New York and Washington DC papers were right there, so there was no need to pump money into travel. For other "Newspapers" the "Big" issues required National support.
Rehashing the obvious here, but to make sure there is no confusion the rehash is not bad in my opinion. What we have seen in the last 10 years is the complete take over of all national media. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, and all of their variants all work for the same people, and it's not the average citizen. They all produce the same AP stories and FUD. Enough people distrust them that ratings have plummeted and Blog sites have made huge leaps in readership. Sites like Infowars, Mother Jones, Drudge Report, and Natural News have exploded. Sure, some of their articles are biased just as bad as "Main Stream Media" in the opposite direction, but it gives an alternative that "may" be closer to what people see as true. For example, we see the down side of the 2nd amendment on MSM and the upside on alternative sites. Alex Jones appearing on Piers Morgan's show as a blockbuster event for both outlets (more akin to Jerry Springer than "News")
Whistle Blowers from numerous large News Papers have told us that they have been taken over as well, in terms of what they can and can't report about. The same monopolization of media with Broadcast News happened with all the large papers.
In reality, we need to figure out how to get back major stations and break the monopolies. Supporting local is a start of that, as long as you can keep them from being taken over when they get too large. Petitioning for legal action to break the monopolies is another step.
Well, if you agree with what I stated claiming that someone else is being overly paranoid is foolish. Unless of course you don't wish for anyone else to know about the game.
Further, recognizing that small structure means that there is no stupidity, accidents, or mistakes. At least not when they (puppet politicians) make decisions. It does not always turn out the way the cowards hiding in shadows want, but it's always at their direction.
Google is hard?
Which is more rational? To believe that all of these political mistakes are "poor judgements and accidental" or that they are planned and intentional? Hundreds of advisory people in addition to well educated people making decisions keep making the same mistakes over and over again pushing us further toward a twisted world government and state of tyranny in the USA, and it's all a big "whoops"? I don't find your conclusion very rational, sorry.
Well, you are a third correct. Educating people is the answer, normalizing deviance and immorality is not correct. Morality is required for society, like it or not. If you normalize or diminish one portion of morality, you end up reducing all morality. Stop and think about what morality encompasses. Then look at the immorality we have normalized in the US today. It should be no surprise that there is little to no punishment for things like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and Bankster fraud.
Socrates had most of society pegged, and a functional Government very well defined. We tried to implement it and did pretty well for a while, then corrupt people got into power. It should be no surprise that the majority of people in the US have never read "The Republic" let alone studied the work. Most intellectuals I know that read the work did so after being coached, because even Universities mostly provide a cliff notes distorted version of Socrates' works and not the compete work with proper translation.
Well, SCOTUS is already rigged. No need to have conspiracy theories here. There are lists of their horrible rulings so I'm not going to rehash them here.
I don't have much confidence that the Supreme Court would rule any differently, especially considering other rulings this supreme court has made. Have to try though, and if not time to start throwing people out of office.
If it takes an infant two years with the best "computer" in the universe that we know of to learn how to talk, why should we think it will take a machine at even the top-end of the supercomputer scale (which can't have as many "connections" as the average human brain) any less?
While I kind of agree with the point, it absolutely doesn't take 2 years to learn how to talk. It takes a few months to learn to talk (which would include learning that sounds have meaning). Just like it doesn't take over a year to learn to walk, it takes a couple weeks. Interestingly, they learn some very complex things all at the same time.
Randy Marsh called on Al Qaeda to fight Jersey and left China out of it, so I'm thinking they are pretty equally "evil".