We have never observed a Higg's Boson nor a graviton nor anything of the sort. I don't think this means that gravity isn't a scientific theory. And there are in fact paleontologists and biologists searching for and discovering more species everyday. Progress is constantly being made toward refining evolutionary theory. The soundness of evolutionary theory does not depend on finding evidence of every intermediate species ever to exist; this is a matter of precision. Are you proposing that we should believe that species like Archaeopteryx came from non-dinosaur-like animals and evolved into non-bird-like animals and that is is just random that it happens to possess intermediate characteristics of both? We know that Australopithecus afarensis had characteristics intermediate to those of modern day humans and great apes; I don't see how this points to humans coming from clay.
$1000 is a pittance compared to the fame you'll achieve for even being connected to scientific proof of ghosts. Obviously people would put up $1000, and for more, if only to make much more money off the book deal and talk show appearances. I'm just James Randi would be honestly happy for the JREF to part with their million to be a part of something so momentous and significant to our understanding of the world.
Indeed it was far worse in Germany, and had it been as bad in America I do not doubt there is a good chance we would have taken the same path. However, I don't see how a private racist terror group has anything to do with fascism taking hold. Besides, the KKK was revitalized after The Birth of a Nation, long before the Depression.
My point isn't that the U.S. was better; you're right in asserting that conditions in Germany were far, far worse than in the U.S. My point was the U.S. today doesn't have conditions comparable to Weimar Germany, or even to the Depression U.S., so saying that we are headed for fascism based on the economy today is pretty sketchy.
I fail to see what's so extremist about believing that the world is best understood through reason, observation, and experimentation? Maybe it's radical to claim that models which are supported by a large body of evidence and which can make meaningful predictions should be considered useful theories. And it must be way off the deep end to claim that non-falsifiable assertions don't have the same standing as models which can be bolstered by evidence, much less theories which actually have it.
"The fence" is somewhere between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. The wrong side of the fence is Lamarckianism. Intelligent Design isn't even wrong. It's completely off the deep end.
People for the most part don't really get this emotional over evolution; after all, it's science, not ethics. If somebody insisted that gravity is caused by electrons, I would certainly disagree with them and think them foolish, but I wouldn't feel any animosity towards them.
The problem is that the Creationists are not really attacking evolutionary theory head-on, because they have no means to do so. Evolutionary theory has become was it is today by inference and adjustment based on countless empirical data. All the Creationists have is a few specious arguments and an old book. So instead, they attack science itself. They argue it's just a theory, as though a theory were a hypothesis. They argue that Intelligent Design is a competing theory, despite having no evidence (and being non-falsifiable, not even being a model). They want to conflate science and pseudoscience to the point where they are indistinguishable. They want to humans to abandon our means of understanding the world around us.
It is not a fight over whether or not man came from earlier primates or was molded out of clay. It is a fight of willful ignorance against knowledge. The Creationists are not just attacking one idea, but the human mind itself.
And if your biggest beef with ID is its theological nature, what do you like about it? Its entire nature is theological. That's like saying, "I like natural selection except for the whole survival of the fittest part."
The U.S. survived a pretty terrible depression (indeed, people even call it the Great Depression) without resorting to fascism as Germany and Italy did. What exactly makes you think the economic situation today is so unbearably terrible? Not to mention that the root of much of the backlash against the rationalism of the Enlightenment was a result of the horrors of World War I. I think you're just being sensationalist. The pendulum swings back and forth, but not always the same distance.
Mormons believe that Christ is their savior who died for their sins, and they self-identify as Christians. That, and they are a spinoff of Christianity, and not any other religion. As for "sound theology," I'm not quite sure what that means; sound arguments are logically consistent and their premises are true, but the premises of religious tenets tend to be articles of faith. As complex as theology is, I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theology were even logically invalid.
Muslims might be better than Christians when it comes to being less fractious, but even they have problems. I have a friend who honestly believes that Shiites are not Muslims.
It's very possible that corporations will simply pass taxes onto consumers and raise prices, thus countering most of the effect of using the collected money to subsidize lower prices.
Perhaps you've missed the antitrust action against IBM for abusing its monopoly? Yet despite little actually being done against IBM (as was the case with Microsoft), no one would claim that IBM has a monopoly in the general computing market today.
Plenty of Muslims will tell you that Christians aren't monotheists. And many Christians claim to be monotheists while calling Hindus polytheists. My point is that while Mormons vary more from other Christian sects more than the rest of the Christian sects vary from each other, "a conventional Christian standpoint" is the least objective standpoint from which you could judge whether or not Mormons are Christian.
Be careful what you wish for. If the fed gets control of what private organizations can do in every regard, its only a short put to your front door...your living room...your bedroom.
I don't want this. But from a practical standpoint, a private organization with control over my front door, my living room, and my bedroom is just as bad. These children are not necessarily going to the school of their own volition as their parents can force them to against their will. Basically you are saying that it is fair game for a private organization to take control of any aspect of a child's life so long the child's parents consent to it.
Trinitarianism is not explicitly defined in the Bible, nor is there any evidence that Jesus specifically alluded to it. Protestants reject a lot of earlier Christian doctrine too; it's just that there are more of them than Mormons and more people agree that they are Christians.
The Constitution restricts the actions of the government, not those of private citizens (with the exception of the 13th amendment, and formerly the 18th amendment). Private citizens cannot violate the 1st amendment--it is simply not logically possible. I mean, look at what you said: "If somebody wants to do something that the constitution prohibits or does not allow for, they will have to amend the constitution in order for it to be legal." The Constitution doesn't say that I can use a web browser, does that mean I need to wait for an amendment before I read/. ? I'm still having trouble believing you were modded +2, Insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
We have never observed a Higg's Boson nor a graviton nor anything of the sort. I don't think this means that gravity isn't a scientific theory. And there are in fact paleontologists and biologists searching for and discovering more species everyday. Progress is constantly being made toward refining evolutionary theory. The soundness of evolutionary theory does not depend on finding evidence of every intermediate species ever to exist; this is a matter of precision. Are you proposing that we should believe that species like Archaeopteryx came from non-dinosaur-like animals and evolved into non-bird-like animals and that is is just random that it happens to possess intermediate characteristics of both? We know that Australopithecus afarensis had characteristics intermediate to those of modern day humans and great apes; I don't see how this points to humans coming from clay.
$1000 is a pittance compared to the fame you'll achieve for even being connected to scientific proof of ghosts. Obviously people would put up $1000, and for more, if only to make much more money off the book deal and talk show appearances. I'm just James Randi would be honestly happy for the JREF to part with their million to be a part of something so momentous and significant to our understanding of the world.
I suppose telling astronomy teachers they can't teach astrology is political, too.
How about the Archaeopteryx, which was even discovered during Darwin's lifetime?
And illegal to implement, without their permission. Although in the case of a state government this doesn't really matter.
Very few movies in America make "profit," but this is more about screwing people with the fact that any percentage of zero is zero.
I don't imagine a whole lot of associate professors at MIT have tenure. Somewhere around 0, give or take 50%.
Indeed it was far worse in Germany, and had it been as bad in America I do not doubt there is a good chance we would have taken the same path. However, I don't see how a private racist terror group has anything to do with fascism taking hold. Besides, the KKK was revitalized after The Birth of a Nation, long before the Depression.
My point isn't that the U.S. was better; you're right in asserting that conditions in Germany were far, far worse than in the U.S. My point was the U.S. today doesn't have conditions comparable to Weimar Germany, or even to the Depression U.S., so saying that we are headed for fascism based on the economy today is pretty sketchy.
"The fence" is somewhere between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. The wrong side of the fence is Lamarckianism. Intelligent Design isn't even wrong. It's completely off the deep end.
The problem is that the Creationists are not really attacking evolutionary theory head-on, because they have no means to do so. Evolutionary theory has become was it is today by inference and adjustment based on countless empirical data. All the Creationists have is a few specious arguments and an old book. So instead, they attack science itself. They argue it's just a theory, as though a theory were a hypothesis. They argue that Intelligent Design is a competing theory, despite having no evidence (and being non-falsifiable, not even being a model). They want to conflate science and pseudoscience to the point where they are indistinguishable. They want to humans to abandon our means of understanding the world around us.
It is not a fight over whether or not man came from earlier primates or was molded out of clay. It is a fight of willful ignorance against knowledge. The Creationists are not just attacking one idea, but the human mind itself.
And if your biggest beef with ID is its theological nature, what do you like about it? Its entire nature is theological. That's like saying, "I like natural selection except for the whole survival of the fittest part."
Because we all know that one of the fundamental tenets of modern science is that the Ukrainians are bad. Whatever you say.
No, but I can use logic and observation. This is, of course, assuming that you believe in reality.
Here's a hint: the microbes don't come from the broth.
The U.S. survived a pretty terrible depression (indeed, people even call it the Great Depression) without resorting to fascism as Germany and Italy did. What exactly makes you think the economic situation today is so unbearably terrible? Not to mention that the root of much of the backlash against the rationalism of the Enlightenment was a result of the horrors of World War I. I think you're just being sensationalist. The pendulum swings back and forth, but not always the same distance.
We Americans may be arrogant, but at least we don't waste newlines like you do.
Muslims might be better than Christians when it comes to being less fractious, but even they have problems. I have a friend who honestly believes that Shiites are not Muslims.
It's very possible that corporations will simply pass taxes onto consumers and raise prices, thus countering most of the effect of using the collected money to subsidize lower prices.
There's not a whole lot we can do about the price short of bombing Vienna, and somehow I doubt even Bush would do that.
Perhaps you've missed the antitrust action against IBM for abusing its monopoly? Yet despite little actually being done against IBM (as was the case with Microsoft), no one would claim that IBM has a monopoly in the general computing market today.
I'm not sure how releasing a console with a disk drive does so much to destroy homebrew gaming.
Hey, some of us liked Adventures of Lolo! Enough that they made three of them, at least.
Plenty of Muslims will tell you that Christians aren't monotheists. And many Christians claim to be monotheists while calling Hindus polytheists. My point is that while Mormons vary more from other Christian sects more than the rest of the Christian sects vary from each other, "a conventional Christian standpoint" is the least objective standpoint from which you could judge whether or not Mormons are Christian.
I don't want this. But from a practical standpoint, a private organization with control over my front door, my living room, and my bedroom is just as bad. These children are not necessarily going to the school of their own volition as their parents can force them to against their will. Basically you are saying that it is fair game for a private organization to take control of any aspect of a child's life so long the child's parents consent to it.
Trinitarianism is not explicitly defined in the Bible, nor is there any evidence that Jesus specifically alluded to it. Protestants reject a lot of earlier Christian doctrine too; it's just that there are more of them than Mormons and more people agree that they are Christians.
The Constitution restricts the actions of the government, not those of private citizens (with the exception of the 13th amendment, and formerly the 18th amendment). Private citizens cannot violate the 1st amendment--it is simply not logically possible. I mean, look at what you said: "If somebody wants to do something that the constitution prohibits or does not allow for, they will have to amend the constitution in order for it to be legal." The Constitution doesn't say that I can use a web browser, does that mean I need to wait for an amendment before I read /. ? I'm still having trouble believing you were modded +2, Insightful.