You guys are nuts! First post is some crackpot claiming that religion is what is killing off America's Technical fields. That is the most assinine thing I have heard! The only REAL science/religion debate I have heard is Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design and the flap over FETAL stem-cells! How is that depressing the Comp Sci's or any other technical/scientific feild!?!? Moron!
Okay, now it is +5 again. Trouble is, that doesn't change my argument one iota.
You guys are nuts! First post is some crackpot claiming that religion is what is killing off America's Technical fields. That is the most assinine thing I have heard! The only REAL science/religion debate I have heard is Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design and the flap over FETAL stem-cells! How is that depressing the Comp Sci's or any other technical/scientific feild!?!? Moron!
No more moronic than your rant. My post now holds a +3.
The aramaic language, there is no concept of time. Therefore, it must have been extremely difficult for the original authors of the Old Testament, and the people before them who used oral tradition, to truly grasp and convey the concept of a large expanse of time (in the billions of years).
Creationists do not accept your point of view. They believe in the literal reading of the Bible. To the religious right, when the Bible says "days', it means one rotation of the Earth.
>>Who is pushing the Intelligent Design debate? Atheists?
Who is pushing against even the possibility of God existing? There is no proof that there is not.
There is an equal amount of evidence against leprechaun existing. I guess by your rigorous experiment, leprechauns exist.
>>Fact: Modern biology does not exist without evolution as a founding principle.
The bible states a day passed for there to be light/darkness. A day is clearly not the rotation of the earth based on that. Not all religious people oppose evolution. If I were to "create" a lifeform, I may take a few steps to get to it.
You are taking my side. I don't dispute that there are religious people who do not oppose evolution, but what you wrote above is considered heresy by the religious right.
>>No other religious group disputes those two facts more than the religious right.
No other group disputes the possibility of God existing and writes if off based on their own "belief" more than the left.
Does the left believe in drilling in ANWR? I do. Does the left believe in gun rights for all humans, not just Americans? I do. Does the left support a free market system that has *minimal* control from goverment and large corporations? I do.
Face it, not everyone who disagrees with the overarching political control of the religious right is from the left.
>>Okay. Biology will do just swell teaching 'alternative' view of human evolution, right?
Biology wouldn't suffer at all. If modern day squirrels came from an amoeba it doesn't change the biology of the squirrel unless you are trying to regress genes back a few thousand years.
Okay, evolution is a fact. Living things evolve. If you teach a concept that tries to change facts, it is not science.
Theory 1: God created the entire universe and life. Theory 2: Massive amounts of matter floated around in space in such quantities that the sheer mass caused a big bang. If there was no creation, this matter just "existed" and there was no beginning of time (since there can be nothing that creates it). Aftermath of this cosmic explosion led to life that was self sustaining on bodies that just happened to get all of the material needed to support life. This gathering of cosmic materials evolved into modern day life as we know it.
So magic is easier to explain than science so it is the better theory?
No need to study cancer. People who contrat the disease are mearly sinful.
That explanation is simpler than the current genetic/environmetnal links.
The problem with Theory 2 is that if all it takes is matter in space for life to spring up, why couldn't God have sprung up just as life forms on earth? There was no beginning of time or creation of the matter so he would have always been there.
That fallacy has one glaring hole: who created God? And who created the God who created God? At some point you have to arbitrarily break the chain and declare that something came from nothing.
Yep, your theory is soooo much better than abiogenesis.
Apparently, you're missing the whole point of a _Creator_.
Apperently you're missing the whole point of the scientific method.
There is no falsifiability in a _Creator_, so teaching the concept as a scientific theory is not workable.
It has been tried before and found to be hopelessly flawed.
I'll buy into the possibility of evolution being an Origin of Species when someone can document a series of reactions starting with non-organic, naturally-occurring compounds that results in an organism capable of spontaneous, sustainable reproduction, and documents a statistically significant possibility of conditions capable of producing that series of reactions occurring in the history of the earth.
But you are perfectly willing to accept that it happened by some magical event 6,000 years ago - without the slightest bit of evidence outside of the Bible?
>>Who is pushing the Intelligent Design debate? Atheists?
Hint: Where is intelligent design being taught?
Nice attempt to dodge the question. Who is pushing ID?
Nowhere. It's debated about maybe being taught in a courtroom in Kansas. It probably won't make it out of there. U.S. schools are failing *now*, U.S. science and technology lead is lagging *now*.
And the religious right has been pushing the concept that evolution is "just a theory", as though that were some reason to ignore it, for thirty years.
The fact is that Americans do not trust science to provide answers about life, but are more than willing to accept the technology that the scientific method makes possible.
Right now, Christianity is essentially barred from all public schools, evolution is being taught in biology classrooms as fact, and essentially no public school teacher is telling students not to do stem cell research.
But parents are rejecting the idea that evolution is a scientific fact based on the shrill voices eminating from the pulpit. Did you think that the effect of religious conservatives would be that science would be *more* accepted?
In fact, the only thing truly discouraging kids from pursuing science and math, is their introduction to it in public schools. For the most part, it's the abysmal teaching from unionized teachers that is to blame.
Yeah, those fucking unions. They are the reason for all failure.
>>Is everyone who rejects the religious right's tactics and viewpoints 'not religious'? >>I guess you've never heard of the Unitarians.
Oh please. Unitarians are essentially secularists who gather once a week. Can you tell me one doctrine of Unitarianism? I can't, and I attended a Unitarian church for a year.
I guess you are the sole arbiter of who is religious and who isn't.
I think placing the blame simply on the "religious right" is a little biased.
Who is pushing the Intelligent Design debate? Atheists?
Fact: Modern biology does not exist without evolution as a founding principle. Fact: Evolution has as a premise the concept of an Earth older than 6,000 years.
No other religious group disputes those two facts more than the religious right.
It is obvious you are not religious,
Where did you get that idea?
Is everyone who rejects the religious right's tactics and viewpoints 'not religious'?
I guess you've never heard of the Unitarians.
and it seems like you may even fear religious people,
Not all religious people, just the Taliban and the religious right (aka American Jihad).
but to blame the lackluster teaching of science in schools on the "religious right" is simply wrong.
Okay. Biology will do just swell teaching 'alternative' view of human evolution, right?
Considering how the attack on science by religious conservatives has reached a fever pitch, I am not surprised that fewer people are entering the hard sciences as a career. When every scientific discovery is met by screeches and howls by the religious right, the general public is left with the impression that scientists are just another protected minority who are forcing their views on the rest of society. There is little to no discourse on *how* these scientific discoveries are vetted; but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic.
Biology and any other field of science dealing with the age of the Earth are destined to decline in the US. The balance of power has already tipped decidedly to non-US schools in technical training in these fields and will continue. This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating.
Any student of history knows that Scopes lost his trial. Things haven't changed that much in the US in nearly a century.
My comments may seem to be a troll, but you missed the point: Fox is notorious for broadcasting inflammatory or sensational programs as "news" only to broadcast retractions later - without admitting culpability - while still generating ad revenue on both programs.
If crediblity is an issue in news broadcasting or print journalism, then the marketplace has told Fox it doesn't care. The Alien Autopsy video, and the subsequent debunking programming, made Fox millions of dollars in ad revenue.
In Bob Park's book Voodoo Science, he describes how Fox ran the 'Alien Autopsy' video as a quasi-news/documentary three times after which they ran a program that debunked the video as a fraud. They made money both times.
From one of the chapters: "Even the stereotypical proponents of each endeavor are polar opposites. In college, the hip avant-garde art students generally do not mingle with their more conventional counterparts in the physics department."
Funny that he made that observation because the only two departments on the campus I attended would still have lights on after 8:00 pm were physics and art.
You'd think they would have noticed themselves and offered to buy each other a round.;)
I guess that depends on where you reside at the time of slashdotting: red shifted in anger as the server admin, or blue shifted as the sad slashreader who never got to see the original article.
But I don't see much difference in the representation of top and down quarks in the panels shown.
That said, I always find it interesting how the visual arts community attempts to capture the reality of the world based on the known principles of their day. Looking back through history at the artist rendering of our world provides us with a unique perspective on how wrong we were in describing the world in art.
I'm afraid that the world of quantum mechanics is just too weird for us to capture in visual display. Perhaps it will take someone like Dali or Escher to provides us with a view of the quantum world.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys are nuts! First post is some crackpot claiming that religion is what is killing off America's Technical fields. That is the most assinine thing I have heard! The only REAL science/religion debate I have heard is Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design and the flap over FETAL stem-cells! How is that depressing the Comp Sci's or any other technical/scientific feild!?!? Moron!
Okay, now it is +5 again. Trouble is, that doesn't change my argument one iota.
Here is a preview:
Damn pirates!
Only $14.99 on Pay-Per-View. Check your local listings for details.
You guys are nuts! First post is some crackpot claiming that religion is what is killing off America's Technical fields. That is the most assinine thing I have heard! The only REAL science/religion debate I have heard is Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design and the flap over FETAL stem-cells! How is that depressing the Comp Sci's or any other technical/scientific feild!?!? Moron!
No more moronic than your rant. My post now holds a +3.
Giving excuses for Americans being lazy..
Who said anything about being lazy?
Are you now to the point of creating arguments out of whole cloth?
The US has maintained one of the highest productivity levels of any nation in the last decade.
You are really off track.
but I just hate to think that some fool may actually believe you.
At least I made a point. Searching through your message I failed to find one.
The aramaic language, there is no concept of time. Therefore, it must have been extremely difficult for the original authors of the Old Testament, and the people before them who used oral tradition, to truly grasp and convey the concept of a large expanse of time (in the billions of years).
Creationists do not accept your point of view. They believe in the literal reading of the Bible. To the religious right, when the Bible says "days', it means one rotation of the Earth.
>>Who is pushing the Intelligent Design debate? Atheists?
Who is pushing against even the possibility of God existing? There is no proof that there is not.
There is an equal amount of evidence against leprechaun existing. I guess by your rigorous experiment, leprechauns exist.
>>Fact: Modern biology does not exist without evolution as a founding principle.
The bible states a day passed for there to be light/darkness. A day is clearly not the rotation of the earth based on that. Not all religious people oppose evolution. If I were to "create" a lifeform, I may take a few steps to get to it.
You are taking my side. I don't dispute that there are religious people who do not oppose evolution, but what you wrote above is considered heresy by the religious right.
>>No other religious group disputes those two facts more than the religious right.
No other group disputes the possibility of God existing and writes if off based on their own "belief" more than the left.
Does the left believe in drilling in ANWR? I do.
Does the left believe in gun rights for all humans, not just Americans? I do.
Does the left support a free market system that has *minimal* control from goverment and large corporations? I do.
Face it, not everyone who disagrees with the overarching political control of the religious right is from the left.
>>Okay. Biology will do just swell teaching 'alternative' view of human evolution, right?
Biology wouldn't suffer at all. If modern day squirrels came from an amoeba it doesn't change the biology of the squirrel unless you are trying to regress genes back a few thousand years.
Okay, evolution is a fact. Living things evolve. If you teach a concept that tries to change facts, it is not science.
Theory 1: God created the entire universe and life.
Theory 2: Massive amounts of matter floated around in space in such quantities that the sheer mass caused a big bang. If there was no creation, this matter just "existed" and there was no beginning of time (since there can be nothing that creates it). Aftermath of this cosmic explosion led to life that was self sustaining on bodies that just happened to get all of the material needed to support life. This gathering of cosmic materials evolved into modern day life as we know it.
So magic is easier to explain than science so it is the better theory?
No need to study cancer. People who contrat the disease are mearly sinful.
That explanation is simpler than the current genetic/environmetnal links.
The problem with Theory 2 is that if all it takes is matter in space for life to spring up, why couldn't God have sprung up just as life forms on earth? There was no beginning of time or creation of the matter so he would have always been there.
That fallacy has one glaring hole: who created God? And who created the God who created God? At some point you have to arbitrarily break the chain and declare that something came from nothing.
Yep, your theory is soooo much better than abiogenesis.
Apparently, you're missing the whole point of a _Creator_.
Apperently you're missing the whole point of the scientific method.
There is no falsifiability in a _Creator_, so teaching the concept as a scientific theory is not workable.
It has been tried before and found to be hopelessly flawed.
I'll buy into the possibility of evolution being an Origin of Species when someone can document a series of reactions starting with non-organic, naturally-occurring compounds that results in an organism capable of spontaneous, sustainable reproduction, and documents a statistically significant possibility of conditions capable of producing that series of reactions occurring in the history of the earth.
But you are perfectly willing to accept that it happened by some magical event 6,000 years ago - without the slightest bit of evidence outside of the Bible?
So much for your *scientific* explanation.
>>Who is pushing the Intelligent Design debate? Atheists?
Hint: Where is intelligent design being taught?
Nice attempt to dodge the question. Who is pushing ID?
Nowhere. It's debated about maybe being taught in a courtroom in Kansas. It probably won't make it out of there. U.S. schools are failing *now*, U.S. science and technology lead is lagging *now*.
And the religious right has been pushing the concept that evolution is "just a theory", as though that were some reason to ignore it, for thirty years.
The fact is that Americans do not trust science to provide answers about life, but are more than willing to accept the technology that the scientific method makes possible.
Right now, Christianity is essentially barred from all public schools, evolution is being taught in biology classrooms as fact, and essentially no public school teacher is telling students not to do stem cell research.
But parents are rejecting the idea that evolution is a scientific fact based on the shrill voices eminating from the pulpit. Did you think that the effect of religious conservatives would be that science would be *more* accepted?
In fact, the only thing truly discouraging kids from pursuing science and math, is their introduction to it in public schools. For the most part, it's the abysmal teaching from unionized teachers that is to blame.
Yeah, those fucking unions. They are the reason for all failure.
>>Is everyone who rejects the religious right's tactics and viewpoints 'not religious'?
>>I guess you've never heard of the Unitarians.
Oh please. Unitarians are essentially secularists who gather once a week. Can you tell me one doctrine of Unitarianism? I can't, and I attended a Unitarian church for a year.
I guess you are the sole arbiter of who is religious and who isn't.
I'll send out the press release.
What do evolution and radiometric dating have to do with engineering and chemistry?
Engineering relies on fundemental science to progress. Chemistry is not the only area of science where the US is sliding.
Evolution != Biology
Bullshit. Now I know you are high.
Radiometric Dating != Biology
Evolution relies on the age of the Earth being greater than 6,000 years. Modern biology doesn't exist without evolution.
Your statements are proof of my earlier posts.
Considering how the liberal left wastes all of their time nagging on the "religious" right for having morals and consciences..
I'm a libertarian. I doubt there are many political topics you can get more "to the right" of than me.
Go flog another strawman. Religious conservatives have no exclusive claim to morals and conscience.
I think placing the blame simply on the "religious right" is a little biased.
Who is pushing the Intelligent Design debate? Atheists?
Fact: Modern biology does not exist without evolution as a founding principle.
Fact: Evolution has as a premise the concept of an Earth older than 6,000 years.
No other religious group disputes those two facts more than the religious right.
It is obvious you are not religious,
Where did you get that idea?
Is everyone who rejects the religious right's tactics and viewpoints 'not religious'?
I guess you've never heard of the Unitarians.
and it seems like you may even fear religious people,
Not all religious people, just the Taliban and the religious right (aka American Jihad).
but to blame the lackluster teaching of science in schools on the "religious right" is simply wrong.
Okay. Biology will do just swell teaching 'alternative' view of human evolution, right?
I didnt think American science was limited to abortions and cloning.
Human evolution has nothing to do with those two topics directly, but is none-the-less the focal point of religious attacks.
For whatever reason, religious fanatics believe that teaching anything but the Biblical version of human origins is itself a religious viewpoint.
Flog abortion and cloning all you like, modern biology is impossible to explain without evolution.
Christians don't control the government.
Sure.
Considering how the attack on science by religious conservatives has reached a fever pitch, I am not surprised that fewer people are entering the hard sciences as a career. When every scientific discovery is met by screeches and howls by the religious right, the general public is left with the impression that scientists are just another protected minority who are forcing their views on the rest of society. There is little to no discourse on *how* these scientific discoveries are vetted; but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic.
Biology and any other field of science dealing with the age of the Earth are destined to decline in the US. The balance of power has already tipped decidedly to non-US schools in technical training in these fields and will continue. This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating.
Any student of history knows that Scopes lost his trial. Things haven't changed that much in the US in nearly a century.
My comments may seem to be a troll, but you missed the point: Fox is notorious for broadcasting inflammatory or sensational programs as "news" only to broadcast retractions later - without admitting culpability - while still generating ad revenue on both programs.
If crediblity is an issue in news broadcasting or print journalism, then the marketplace has told Fox it doesn't care. The Alien Autopsy video, and the subsequent debunking programming, made Fox millions of dollars in ad revenue.
In Bob Park's book Voodoo Science, he describes how Fox ran the 'Alien Autopsy' video as a quasi-news/documentary three times after which they ran a program that debunked the video as a fraud. They made money both times.
Fair *and* Balanced.
Fair *and* Balanced.
Who would want to protect children anyhow?
From one of the chapters: "Even the stereotypical proponents of each endeavor are polar opposites. In college, the hip avant-garde art students generally do not mingle with their more conventional counterparts in the physics department."
;)
Funny that he made that observation because the only two departments on the campus I attended would still have lights on after 8:00 pm were physics and art.
You'd think they would have noticed themselves and offered to buy each other a round.
I think the comment refers to me, not the article. ;)
I guess that depends on where you reside at the time of slashdotting: red shifted in anger as the server admin, or blue shifted as the sad slashreader who never got to see the original article.
Wow! That didn't take long.
I wonder if they have ever experienced a slashdotting?
But I don't see much difference in the representation of top and down quarks in the panels shown.
That said, I always find it interesting how the visual arts community attempts to capture the reality of the world based on the known principles of their day. Looking back through history at the artist rendering of our world provides us with a unique perspective on how wrong we were in describing the world in art.
I'm afraid that the world of quantum mechanics is just too weird for us to capture in visual display. Perhaps it will take someone like Dali or Escher to provides us with a view of the quantum world.
But again, it could just be me.
Awww.. Did your mom take your porn away again?