For what it is worth... (Posted Jan 10, 2005 11:26 UTC (Mon) by guest PaXTeam) (Post reply)
lots of speculation so let's see the actual timeline a bit. spender emailed Linus sometime early december about the few issues he had found. he also mentioned some of the fixes that were in PaX, the result of one of them was this commit: http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/cset@41bc90 0azV2y9... . understand please that we (well, spender at least) already had had a working two-way email connection with Linus. during the holidays i had finally time to work on the forward port of PaX (last supported version was 2.6.7) and that's when i realized the change in status of the expand_down() bug as since 2.6.9 it became exploitable by unprivileged users as well. so i emailed Linus about it (of the importance, not the bug itself, he had already known about it from spender, although he had never replied back on that one). one week later, which is early this year i resent the mail to Linus and Andrew as well, and the next day spender forwarded the mail himself to them (as i said, he had a known working email route to Linus at least). nothing happened except spender was preparing the next grsecurity release and it became more and more urgent to get some feedback on these issues. we were considering emailing Alan Cox (the week of waiting allotted to Andrew as well wasn't over yet) when the uselib() exploit suddenly hit the net and everyone entered forced release mode, we couldn't delay it either.
now that you know some background, tell me again, 1. how much more we should have waited, 2. why we shouldn't have contacted Linus/Andrew in the first place, 3. why we should have contacted Alan first (who is explicitly not the security contact anymore), 4. why we should have contacted a VM hacker first (none of whom is a security contact either, not even for their respective employer, let alone linux/VM in general).
see, i've been in the security industry for some number of years now, and i know quite well what best practices are (everyone's got his own, but there're some common elements):
rule 1: you contact the explicit security contact first. for linux this used to be Alan himself, nowadays it's vendor-sec (yes, that means you're not supposed to deal with individual distros, that's why vendor-sec was established in the first place). except they proved to unreliable, not to mention that it's *impossible* to contact them in a secure way (they don't have a PGP key).
rule 2: short of such a security contact, you begin contacting the 'people in control', from top to down, not the other way around. for companies that's relevant because the chain of control also represents the chain of responsibility. you can argue that open source/free software projects are free of chain of control, but they're not free of responsibility. i believed and still believe that we did the right thing when we began contacting Linus, then Andrew and were about to contact Alan when external events intervened.
> THAT is why there is all this maintainers/lieutenants business.
except the VM has no explicitly listed maintainer. but yes, i can guess who the main contributors are, but that doesn't make them a security contact (remember, we only wanted to get feedback, be told what to do next, and *not* to force Linus or anyone to actually manage the issue). it makes them the right person to actually fix the bug, but that's only the second step after the initial contact.
> PaxTeam isn't subscribed to LKML. Why? Because "there's too much"?
correct, i have a day job (unrelated to linux), family and friends, i can't handle that email load (and there's more in my world than lkml). i don't know where you got that i didn't like lkml, if i wasn't sympathetic to linux, i would have posted everything to bugtraq a month ago (contrast that to the recent DJB case).
> And that fact that it claims to report a security vulnerability is quite > likely to get it classified as "crying wolf"
i provided a proof of concept exploit (which you would know if you had actually read the announcement and posts here).
it furthers my point that evidence that doesn't match the theory can be disregarded
More conspiracy theory.
If it didn't get published in Nature or Science, it was probably NOT what the author thought it was.
Consider this: Why does the foot impression have a negative cast of a trilobite on one side, but a postive cast on the other? Have you considered the possibility that what you are seeing is not a trilobite embedded contemporaneously with the "footprint"?
The burial stone photos you show still do not constitute scientific evidence, (from the webpage: "While skeptics consider the Ica Stones a hoax, their authenticity has neither been proved or disproved." and "Some indicators of age also suggest that a modern forgery is unlikely") you have still failed to prove that the dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.
What "age" indicators did they use? Where are the nearest deposit of dinosaur bones? (hint: they live in the Andes)? Did it occur to you that the Incas, being modern humans, would be able to draw pictures of things they observed buried in stone?
And the bonus question: Why do you insist that science behave in an unscientific manner (e.g., accept claims without asking for proof, or accept a supernatural explanation for natural phenomenon)?
so in the future, say if there becomes another theory that becomes an alternative(perhaps not popular, but scientifically sound, and hadnt been disproved) to the big bang, then if some phyisics teacher decides that he wants to call it,"a theory, not a fact". and the most predominate theory is creationism.
But we are discussing "science" in this context. All theories are up for challenge and no one is taking issue with providing students with 'alternative' theories. If an alternative "scientific" theory is provided, they will be discussed.
You know full well that the school board was not interested in offering a real alternative "scientific" explanation for consideration. They want discussion of Biblical explanations for life treated on a level playing field with "science" in a discussion about "science".
You can't discuss the supernatural in "science". "Science" only explains the natural laws and systems, not supernatural laws and systems. This is the issue that the court took up.
i dont like the fact, that he should judge what we can and cannot "denigrate", regardless of if the next predominate theory is religous or not. because that is protected under the first admendment.
This isn't a free speech issue. You are still encouraged to speak out all you like in the US. You are also correct in identifying this as a First Amendment issue, but not the way you think it about it.
All government agencies and their employees are prohibited from using public dollars to encourage or support a religious cause. The advancement of Creationist principles benefits no one outside of a circle of the public who believes in it. It clearly benefits only Christians who believe that the Bible is literally true with no errors.
Creationism is not "science". It is is religion that is attempting to rewrite "science" without abiding by the principles that "science" requires to work.
Teaching "science" serves a secular public good. Tax dollars that build highways for public commerce are also expended to educate students in the field of "science". They become doctors, engineers, and priests.
Teaching Creationism, does not advance "science", but instead breeds hostility to scientific explanations. Not all theories, just those dealing with the origins of human life. Creationist webpages are wonderfully anemic in the fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, pharmacuticals, automotive engineering, nuclear physics, etc. They focus entirely on geology, paleontology, and anthropology. That approach to *alternative* science seem limited and opportunistic.
Any guesses who this shift in public policy benefits?
The First Amendment priciple at stake here is not free speech, but separation of church and state.
so, infact the constitution is a contract,
No, in fact it isn't. You wrote the definition yourself:
constitution n. the basic principles...
Contracts are, as you say, An agreement between two or more parties... The Creationist issue isn't a contract case of law anyhow.
The US Constitution is a declaration of principles stating that the citizens of the US have ALL of the rights to begin with, but we will cede a few of them to the government just to keep the ship of state afloat. All other rights are reserved for the States and the people:
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, you see, nothing in the US Constitution is the basis of the rights the citizens hold. It is the exact opposite.
Correct, but finding evidence of a trilobites in a human sandal fossil and human footprints embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins bring up interesting points on why the evolution theory does not change to meet the found facts, but rather the facts are discarded becuase they don't fit the theory.
I noticed that none of the evidence you cite is not found in any scientific journals.
Conspriacy theories are not scientific ones. Publish the evidence in Science or Nature with your evidence to support your theories. The stones with the dinosaurs look amazingly "new" (i.e., no wear on the carvings at all, limited number of stones, no citation of other sources).
If you have proof that these two citations are for real (both cites are from the same questionable source).
The article doesnt mention that creationism was being taught as a science, the judge wanst judging that, he was judging on the fact that they were misleading
No, he was reacting to the intent of the stickers. He wrote his opinion based on how the school board had made an executive decision regarding evolution. The school board's decision affected only one scientific theory for editorial comment.
Any guesses why the board did that?
The sticker doesn't mention make any mention about religon, therefore wouldnt be subject to the establishment of religon clause. but prohibiting the sticker might be subject to the first admendment.
Right, but why did the school board single out *one* theory from all the rest?
in fact the constition is the basis of our rights
Wrong again.
The Constitution lays out the rights that We The People grant it, not the other way around.
No wonder this issue confuses you.
his should fall underneath the jurisdiction and responsibility of the DOE to ensure that the school follows educational guidlines and policies
The Department of Education (which, by the way, should be abolished) is part of one of three branches of the government. It is the job of the courts as well as Congress to weigh in on the matter. The courts weigh in only because it is too political for Congress or the Administration to touch.
ultimatly i believe that society works best if its left to live as free as possible
Then why do you believe that the government doles out the rights?
Technically evolution is a theory, not a LAW of science.
Germ theory, or the theory of how humans contract disease, is not a law.
Does that mean you shouldn't wash your hands after taking a dump?
but i dont think i see where the unconstitutionality comes in.
Because the issue of the "stickers" is yet another attempt to get creation injected into the scientific debate.
Creationism is not science. There is no falsifiable premise to the statement that "God created the universe" that falls within the realm of scientific debate.
It may be philosophy or theology, but there is no way to apply the scientific method to the question.
of course these days judges dont interperate law, they make thier own.
No one said that Creationism couldn't be taught, just can't be taught as 'science".
and these laws are on thier views of right or wrong, which may or may not be right or wrong.
No, they are interpreting the Constitution.
Its about time that the US law stripped bare,
Great.
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That pretty much leaves the study of religion in a secular school as off limits. There is nothing in that statement that prohibits the discussion of Creationism in a church.
because this is just one more example of how extremism is choking the air out of society.
Spoken like a true extremist. Play the victim while pushing your opinion on the rest of society.
Yes, its fundamentally wrong to put idiotic messages on all school books,
Yep. I guess this is the appropriate time to ask: "What is your point?"
yes its wrong to give children ideas of fantasy, and ludacrisyin a center of learning, and yes its done because of religon. but "so is life" and we cant go mandating what actions people are allowed to do.
Constitutional law isn't your strong suit.
a better action would be to discipline whomevers decision it was to put the stickers there in the first place.
Big Bang is saying that the universe has a beginning. So I think it is an evidence, but not a proof. Of course you could say the universe is uncaused, or there are infinite number of universes. Or we don't know.
Facts do not always constitute "truth". The facts, as we understand them, provide an incomplete picture of the universe and what is on the boundary of it. But that in no way constitutes proof of a deity. That is why I asked whether this was another "God in the Gaps" exercise.
I don't quite understand why you require testable and falsifiable evidences.
Because that is how science works. The original thread was how Intelligent Design can be incorporated into natural philosophy. ID requires that you suspend disbelief and accept that an unknown entity created the physical universe. That discussion is fine for a late night dorm room discussions, or a venue where all possible philosophical avenues are open, but science has certain rules that have to be adhered to in order to be considered "scientific".
Testable and falsifiable evidence is one of those requirements.
That's not how we live our life everyday.
That may not be how you live your life everyday. I do not accept anything blindly.
Is the bible good evidence? I think so. Of course it is not proof.
Religion does not require proof.
Again you could say the authors of the bible are liars, superstitious, or the later Church were corrupt and they fabricated evidences.
I believe that religious people did the best they could with the information they had to describe and explain their world. The bible says squat about the mysteries that have been opened to us since the Renaissance. That is why some religious people attack the data that scientific inquiry has produced. If it isn't literally in the bible, goes the reasoning, then it is not "Godly". If it is not taught in Sunday School, it isn't real knowledge.
How about believer testimony? Again you could argue they are mistaken. Or placebo effect.
I would argue nothing of the sort. These people believe what their experience and training tells them is true. Before microscopes and the Germ Theory (yes, my little Creationists; the medical community relies on a *theory* [gasp!] to explain how people get sick), people believed that your illnesses were controlled by humors. The methods used to analyze those humors were good for their time, but medical practitioners only treated symptoms not causes. They operated on the information they had at the time.
I believe both theists and atheists are reasonable in their belief, unless you really require us to hold very high standard. But it is hard to have truely open mind.
I disagree. I have an open mind. But the standards of evidence required by the scientific method have lead to greater advances in human achievement and the alleviation of human suffering than the millions of people looking for answers in an ancient text.
That doesn't mean I believe that *every* problem humans face can be reduced to a scientific question. There is value in what the bible and other ancient texts teach us about our obligation to each other. The problem I see with the leadership of these great religions is that they fail to adapt their messages to modern times. The themes are timeless but the application of that knowledge, and the way the message is delivered, is outdated.
Unfortunately we are asked to 'spread the gospel' So, I am sorry could not leave the atheists, or any one for that matter, alone.
That is what I love about private property. I can use the power of the State to keep you off my land. You can stand on the street just off my property line and shout your pronouncements up to my house all you like. Hell, I will even take a bullet to defend your right to stand in the street (we don't get much traffic) and preach to my trees, bushes, and puppy dogs.
So what you want us to do, if we truely believe that there would be judgement in the future?
I would expect you to do what your conscience tells you to do.
Well, my professional publications are part of the public record. Contact me and I will send you the search parameters.
If you can detect any bias in the reports that I have authored, or have been a co-contrtibutor, be my guest. You can parade every misstep that I have made in any venue you wish.
Atheism, and I will speak boldly here, is a psychological crutch for people who want to be left alone.
Now that is funny. Consider the fact that most of the world's 5+ billion people express some adherence to a spiritual being, you are either exhibiting false modesty, or you don't think before you write.
Soviet Union has never placed dictators in other countries.
The leaders of Eastern Europe and the asian buffer countries were all hand picked by Stalin. Their successors were all elevated to their positions by the Kremlin.
How could it if the whole point was to support popular revolutions of the proletariat?
Sure. Whatever.
Yes, often those revolutions ended up with a dictator in power.
But these were all revolutions of the proletariat! They couldn't possibly be ruled by dictators if they had their trusty "communism" ointment to protect them.
And often the USSR supported an existing dictator if he promised to move towards communism.
Yeah, I remember that East German dictator who rose independently to power after WWII.
What was his name again?
But I don't recall the USSR doing anything like the US did with Saddam...
Did you get the model number of Saddam's tanks?
They were Soviet-built T-72s.
...or Taliban.
Amazing coincidence. The Americans didn't support the Taliban either.
It never supported militant groups or rogue countries just to piss off the US.
You aren't a student Cuban or African history, are you?
Yes, I have found evidence enough to confirm everything said about god in the bible.
Great! As Joseph Campbell said, "Follow your bliss".
So you have a choice, believe me to be a lunatic who hears voices (-1 Troll. feel free, I don't care), or maybe I'm right.
Despite what theists believe about atheists, many of us find the study of religion to be interesting. Consider the fact that, as far as we know, humans are the only biological organism on the planet that has a religious behavior and you have the foundation for a scientific study of religiosity.
I don't consider religious belief to be a mental disease.
All I can tell you is that the truth is out there and you will find it if you look.
This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the theist-atheist discussion. You and other theists consider our lack of religiousity as a sign of incomplete training. As I said before, I can only speak for atheists I know, but many of us are former theists. I was a Christian until I could no longer answer "yes" to the most fundamental question in religion: "Do I have faith?
"... want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people."
And God is quite happy to leave you alone too. You don't want god to interfere? fine he wont. He is quite happy to let you live out your life oblivious to his influence.
Fine by me. I am exercising my free will by asking for proof. Faith isn't compelling evidence for me.
"... not because we fear for our fate after we die."
I do not do good out of fear that if I do something bad I will be sent to hell.
No, but it is a theistic propensity to use the threat of an unpleasant afterlife as a tool of persuasion. Not particularly effective threat if the target doesn't believe in an afterlife, I can tell you.
Nothing I do in this place will have any impact on what happens to me. A God who I claim to be able to create this place does not need me to do anything in order to win his favour, what could I possibly offer that would be pleasing enough. No, he just wants me, warts and all.
Good enough. I'm glad you have decided to relax your grip on the material world, even just a little bit.
By the same token, don't judge christianity based on the behaviour of christians.
I try to avoid judging people based on their affiliation, but their behavior tends to complicate that task.
We are just like you, no better, no worse. Able to ignore our conscience and capable of the same atrocities.
I *was* a Christian before I returned to atheism and I feel pretty confident that a religion without a god isn't a religion. It may be a philosophy, but it isn't a belief in the supernatural.
While the "religious" have faith in God, the atheists have faith in no God.
I hope you aren't a religious person. Because if you are, you are comparing my "belief" with your "faith". I don't know many religious people who hold their faith so cheaply.
Neither can prove their belief.
Well if that is the objective standard for the existence or non-existence of a being, then let me introduce you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Only the faithful can see the IPU. The IPU will bring you sadness and joy, life after death, and will ward off all evil spirits.
I *was* a Christian before I returned to atheism and I feel pretty confident that a religion without a god isn't a religion. It may be a philosophy, but it isn't a belief in the supernatural.
While the "religious" have faith in God, the atheists have faith in no God.
I hope you aren't a religious person. Because if you are, you are comparing my "belief" with your "faith". I don't know many religious people who hold their faith so cheaply.
Well if that is the objective standard for the existence or non-existence of a being, then let me introduce you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Only the faithful can see the IPU. The IPU will bring you sadness and joy, life after death, and will ward off all evil spirits.
The way you said it could be offending to Iranians.
I am an American. My very *existance* is offensive to many Iranians.
Saddam used chemical weapons supplied by the West.
And he used them. Your point?
I'm not sure what are implying by the word "pounding".
Let's see: Iraq invading from the west and engaging in a war of attrition that left both sides in a stalemate. Artillery shelling (thanks to Gerald V. Bull), wave after wave of blind attacks, aerial assults...
I call that "pounding". But they gave as well as they took.
That's actually a pretty good description of God in his own words according the old testament.
True, but I think the parent poster is a supporter of ID. If that is the case, then I doubt seriously that they are Jewish. Christians view god as a nice old man with a white, fluffy beard. The god of the old testament is indeed very human in his characteristics.
You are reaching with that conclusion. *No* physical evidence. How about the Big Bang?
How about it? Is this just another appeal for "God in the Gaps"?
Bias is on both sides.
How so? You have irrefutable evidence of god's existence? Something testable and falsifiable?
I have an open mind. Fill it with something other than speculation and you will be able to convince me.
"Atheists want nothing more than to live their lives without God so they can live a life without any ultimate consequences."
Atheists (and I can only speak for the ones I know) want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people. They don't belive in god, so the threat of any "ultimate consequences" is moot.
We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die.
For every petty dictator we supported in the Cold War, there was a petty dictator supported by the Soviet Union as well. I noticed that East Germany was absent from your listing. There are many more in that listing as well, I assure you.
And what about colonies? Every major power in Europe was just itching to get into Africa in a big way. Do you think they brought the natives foreign aid?
How do you rate the French involvement in Algeria or the Ivory Coast?
To contantly jump on the US for having made poor decisions as a nation undermines the great sacrifice that American citizens have made in keeping major conflict from arriving at everyone's doors world-wide. You and I can criticize the decisions as ill-informed or malevolent, but please don't forget that the US doesn't make them without perceived threats from abroad.
There are still Americans who believe in John Adams proclaimation that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
Living up to that proclaimation has been difficult and has meant the sacrifice of a nations treasure.
It is just saying the atheism is untenable when looking at the information found in nature.
That statement is contradicted by the information we find in nature. There is *no* physical evidence that god exists or it would have been broadcast to the entire world in multiple venues. What you consider evidence is just how you apply your own filter to the data that exists. When you look at an eye, you apply your filter by saying "Nothing that complex could be created by random events". The facts , however, are far different from your filter.
So, because the US supported Saddam previously, that means it should negate all hostilities, no matter the reason?
A rather poor attempt to change the subject, don't you think? You original assertion was that [paraphrasing]"nobody in the world but the US cared about the Kurds being gassed, and it took US intervention to save these poor people from Saddam".
My comment addressed only this aspect of your entire post. I do believe we should have brought down the regime, but I also believe that the reasons the Administration gave for initiating action were contrived and did not serve our foreign policy interests well.
I thought we should have intervened because there wouldn't have been anyone left alive in the country if the sanctions were dragged out indefinately. But those sanctions were imposed and maintained by a world body who did not want to accept responsibility for deposing an absolutely rutheless prick.
Slashdot Mirror
For what it is worth...
0 0azV2y9... . understand please that we (well, spender at least) already had had a working two-way email connection with Linus. during the holidays i had finally time to work on the forward port of PaX (last supported version was 2.6.7) and that's when i realized the change in status of the expand_down() bug as since 2.6.9 it became exploitable by unprivileged users as well. so i emailed Linus about it (of the importance, not the bug itself, he had already known about it from spender, although he had never replied back on that one). one week later, which is early this year i resent the mail to Linus and Andrew as well, and the next day spender forwarded the mail himself to them (as i said, he had a known working email route to Linus at least). nothing happened except spender was preparing the next grsecurity release and it became more and more urgent to get some feedback on these issues. we were considering emailing Alan Cox (the week of waiting allotted to Andrew as well wasn't over yet) when the uselib() exploit suddenly hit the net and everyone entered forced release mode, we couldn't delay it either.
(Posted Jan 10, 2005 11:26 UTC (Mon) by guest PaXTeam) (Post reply)
lots of speculation so let's see the actual timeline a bit. spender emailed Linus sometime early december about the few issues he had found. he also mentioned some of the fixes that were in PaX, the result of one of them was this commit: http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/cset@41bc9
now that you know some background, tell me again, 1. how much more we should have waited, 2. why we shouldn't have contacted Linus/Andrew in the first place, 3. why we should have contacted Alan first (who is explicitly not the security contact anymore), 4. why we should have contacted a VM hacker first (none of whom is a security contact either, not even for their respective employer, let alone linux/VM in general).
see, i've been in the security industry for some number of years now, and i know quite well what best practices are (everyone's got his own, but there're some common elements):
rule 1: you contact the explicit security contact first. for linux this used to be Alan himself, nowadays it's vendor-sec (yes, that means you're not supposed to deal with individual distros, that's why vendor-sec was established in the first place). except they proved to unreliable, not to mention that it's *impossible* to contact them in a secure way (they don't have a PGP key).
rule 2: short of such a security contact, you begin contacting the 'people in control', from top to down, not the other way around. for companies that's relevant because the chain of control also represents the chain of responsibility. you can argue that open source/free software projects are free of chain of control, but they're not free of responsibility. i believed and still believe that we did the right thing when we began contacting Linus, then Andrew and were about to contact Alan when external events intervened.
> THAT is why there is all this maintainers/lieutenants business.
except the VM has no explicitly listed maintainer. but yes, i can guess who the main contributors are, but that doesn't make them a security contact (remember, we only wanted to get feedback, be told what to do next, and *not* to force Linus or anyone to actually manage the issue). it makes them the right person to actually fix the bug, but that's only the second step after the initial contact.
> PaxTeam isn't subscribed to LKML. Why? Because "there's too much"?
correct, i have a day job (unrelated to linux), family and friends, i can't handle that email load (and there's more in my world than lkml). i don't know where you got that i didn't like lkml, if i wasn't sympathetic to linux, i would have posted everything to bugtraq a month ago (contrast that to the recent DJB case).
> And that fact that it claims to report a security vulnerability is quite
> likely to get it classified as "crying wolf"
i provided a proof of concept exploit (which you would know if you had actually read the announcement and posts here).
And there, on a rock, is a sticker saying:
"Gravity is only a theory"
Seriously though, why is it such a horible thing to have an alternate view presented.
Not if the alternative has some basis in science.
Where is the physical evidence for the theory of common ancestry?
In your DNA. Chimps have 99%+ of the genes you do. You possess the same material in your fingernail that plankton use for their exoskeletons.
Curious coincidences?
it furthers my point that evidence that doesn't match the theory can be disregarded
More conspiracy theory.
If it didn't get published in Nature or Science, it was probably NOT what the author thought it was.
Consider this: Why does the foot impression have a negative cast of a trilobite on one side, but a postive cast on the other? Have you considered the possibility that what you are seeing is not a trilobite embedded contemporaneously with the "footprint"?
The burial stone photos you show still do not constitute scientific evidence, (from the webpage: "While skeptics consider the Ica Stones a hoax, their authenticity has neither been proved or disproved." and "Some indicators of age also suggest that a modern forgery is unlikely") you have still failed to prove that the dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.
What "age" indicators did they use?
Where are the nearest deposit of dinosaur bones? (hint: they live in the Andes)?
Did it occur to you that the Incas, being modern humans, would be able to draw pictures of things they observed buried in stone?
And the bonus question: Why do you insist that science behave in an unscientific manner (e.g., accept claims without asking for proof, or accept a supernatural explanation for natural phenomenon)?
Do you really hate science that much?
so in the future, say if there becomes another theory that becomes an alternative(perhaps not popular, but scientifically sound, and hadnt been disproved) to the big bang, then if some phyisics teacher decides that he wants to call it,"a theory, not a fact". and the most predominate theory is creationism.
But we are discussing "science" in this context. All theories are up for challenge and no one is taking issue with providing students with 'alternative' theories. If an alternative "scientific" theory is provided, they will be discussed.
You know full well that the school board was not interested in offering a real alternative "scientific" explanation for consideration. They want discussion of Biblical explanations for life treated on a level playing field with "science" in a discussion about "science".
You can't discuss the supernatural in "science". "Science" only explains the natural laws and systems, not super natural laws and systems. This is the issue that the court took up.
i dont like the fact, that he should judge what we can and cannot "denigrate", regardless of if the next predominate theory is religous or not. because that is protected under the first admendment.
This isn't a free speech issue. You are still encouraged to speak out all you like in the US. You are also correct in identifying this as a First Amendment issue, but not the way you think it about it.
All government agencies and their employees are prohibited from using public dollars to encourage or support a religious cause. The advancement of Creationist principles benefits no one outside of a circle of the public who believes in it. It clearly benefits only Christians who believe that the Bible is literally true with no errors.
Creationism is not "science". It is is religion that is attempting to rewrite "science" without abiding by the principles that "science" requires to work.
Teaching "science" serves a secular public good. Tax dollars that build highways for public commerce are also expended to educate students in the field of "science". They become doctors, engineers, and priests.
Teaching Creationism, does not advance "science", but instead breeds hostility to scientific explanations. Not all theories, just those dealing with the origins of human life. Creationist webpages are wonderfully anemic in the fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, pharmacuticals, automotive engineering, nuclear physics, etc. They focus entirely on geology, paleontology, and anthropology. That approach to *alternative* science seem limited and opportunistic.
Any guesses who this shift in public policy benefits?
The First Amendment priciple at stake here is not free speech, but separation of church and state.
so, infact the constitution is a contract,
No, in fact it isn't. You wrote the definition yourself:
constitution n. the basic principles...
Contracts are, as you say, An agreement between two or more parties... The Creationist issue isn't a contract case of law anyhow.
The US Constitution is a declaration of principles stating that the citizens of the US have ALL of the rights to begin with, but we will cede a few of them to the government just to keep the ship of state afloat. All other rights are reserved for the States and the people:
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, you see, nothing in the US Constitution is the basis of the rights the citizens hold. It is the exact opposite.
Did you catch the empasis on "science"?
Correct, but finding evidence of a trilobites in a human sandal fossil and human footprints embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins bring up interesting points on why the evolution theory does not change to meet the found facts, but rather the facts are discarded becuase they don't fit the theory.
I noticed that none of the evidence you cite is not found in any scientific journals.
Conspriacy theories are not scientific ones. Publish the evidence in Science or Nature with your evidence to support your theories. The stones with the dinosaurs look amazingly "new" (i.e., no wear on the carvings at all, limited number of stones, no citation of other sources).
If you have proof that these two citations are for real (both cites are from the same questionable source).
The article doesnt mention that creationism was being taught as a science, the judge wanst judging that, he was judging on the fact that they were misleading
No, he was reacting to the intent of the stickers. He wrote his opinion based on how the school board had made an executive decision regarding evolution. The school board's decision affected only one scientific theory for editorial comment.
Any guesses why the board did that?
The sticker doesn't mention make any mention about religon, therefore wouldnt be subject to the establishment of religon clause. but prohibiting the sticker might be subject to the first admendment.
Right, but why did the school board single out *one* theory from all the rest?
in fact the constition is the basis of our rights
Wrong again.
The Constitution lays out the rights that We The People grant it, not the other way around.
No wonder this issue confuses you.
his should fall underneath the jurisdiction and responsibility of the DOE to ensure that the school follows educational guidlines and policies
The Department of Education (which, by the way, should be abolished) is part of one of three branches of the government. It is the job of the courts as well as Congress to weigh in on the matter. The courts weigh in only because it is too political for Congress or the Administration to touch.
ultimatly i believe that society works best if its left to live as free as possible
Then why do you believe that the government doles out the rights?
Vote for change. Vote Libertarian.
I have.
They do not provide positive evidence, but they do provide some great challenges.
Unfortunately, the role of science is not to just provide a counterpoint to every theory, but to provide affirmative defenses of scientific evidence.
Nothing on the ICR site is scientific evidence in the support for a supernatural creation.
Can they reproduce evolution in the labs? No.
That doesn't mean the theory is false. There are observations that can only be explained "scientifically" by evolution.
Atomic theory explains how neutrons, electrons, and protons interact. Does that mean they don't exist?
Technically evolution is a theory, not a LAW of science.
Germ theory, or the theory of how humans contract disease, is not a law.
Does that mean you shouldn't wash your hands after taking a dump?
but i dont think i see where the unconstitutionality comes in.
Because the issue of the "stickers" is yet another attempt to get creation injected into the scientific debate.
Creationism is not science. There is no falsifiable premise to the statement that "God created the universe" that falls within the realm of scientific debate.
It may be philosophy or theology, but there is no way to apply the scientific method to the question.
of course these days judges dont interperate law, they make thier own.
No one said that Creationism couldn't be taught, just can't be taught as 'science".
and these laws are on thier views of right or wrong, which may or may not be right or wrong.
No, they are interpreting the Constitution.
Its about time that the US law stripped bare,
Great.
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That pretty much leaves the study of religion in a secular school as off limits. There is nothing in that statement that prohibits the discussion of Creationism in a church.
because this is just one more example of how extremism is choking the air out of society.
Spoken like a true extremist. Play the victim while pushing your opinion on the rest of society.
Yes, its fundamentally wrong to put idiotic messages on all school books,
Yep. I guess this is the appropriate time to ask: "What is your point?"
yes its wrong to give children ideas of fantasy, and ludacrisyin a center of learning, and yes its done because of religon. but "so is life" and we cant go mandating what actions people are allowed to do.
Constitutional law isn't your strong suit.
a better action would be to discipline whomevers decision it was to put the stickers there in the first place.
That is what the courts are doing.
I liked their response. At least they didn't flip out and tell you that you are going to burn in hell or something equally irrelevant.
Big Bang is saying that the universe has a beginning. So I think it is an evidence, but not a proof. Of course you could say the universe is uncaused, or there are infinite number of universes. Or we don't know.
Facts do not always constitute "truth". The facts, as we understand them, provide an incomplete picture of the universe and what is on the boundary of it. But that in no way constitutes proof of a deity. That is why I asked whether this was another "God in the Gaps" exercise.
I don't quite understand why you require testable and falsifiable evidences.
Because that is how science works. The original thread was how Intelligent Design can be incorporated into natural philosophy. ID requires that you suspend disbelief and accept that an unknown entity created the physical universe. That discussion is fine for a late night dorm room discussions, or a venue where all possible philosophical avenues are open, but science has certain rules that have to be adhered to in order to be considered "scientific".
Testable and falsifiable evidence is one of those requirements.
That's not how we live our life everyday.
That may not be how you live your life everyday. I do not accept anything blindly.
Is the bible good evidence? I think so. Of course it is not proof.
Religion does not require proof.
Again you could say the authors of the bible are liars, superstitious, or the later Church were corrupt and they fabricated evidences.
I believe that religious people did the best they could with the information they had to describe and explain their world. The bible says squat about the mysteries that have been opened to us since the Renaissance. That is why some religious people attack the data that scientific inquiry has produced. If it isn't literally in the bible, goes the reasoning, then it is not "Godly". If it is not taught in Sunday School, it isn't real knowledge.
How about believer testimony? Again you could argue they are mistaken. Or placebo effect.
I would argue nothing of the sort. These people believe what their experience and training tells them is true. Before microscopes and the Germ Theory (yes, my little Creationists; the medical community relies on a *theory* [gasp!] to explain how people get sick), people believed that your illnesses were controlled by humors. The methods used to analyze those humors were good for their time, but medical practitioners only treated symptoms not causes. They operated on the information they had at the time.
I believe both theists and atheists are reasonable in their belief, unless you really require us to hold very high standard. But it is hard to have truely open mind.
I disagree. I have an open mind. But the standards of evidence required by the scientific method have lead to greater advances in human achievement and the alleviation of human suffering than the millions of people looking for answers in an ancient text.
That doesn't mean I believe that *every* problem humans face can be reduced to a scientific question. There is value in what the bible and other ancient texts teach us about our obligation to each other. The problem I see with the leadership of these great religions is that they fail to adapt their messages to modern times. The themes are timeless but the application of that knowledge, and the way the message is delivered, is outdated.
Unfortunately we are asked to 'spread the gospel' So, I am sorry could not leave the atheists, or any one for that matter, alone.
That is what I love about private property. I can use the power of the State to keep you off my land. You can stand on the street just off my property line and shout your pronouncements up to my house all you like. Hell, I will even take a bullet to defend your right to stand in the street (we don't get much traffic) and preach to my trees, bushes, and puppy dogs.
So what you want us to do, if we truely believe that there would be judgement in the future?
I would expect you to do what your conscience tells you to do.
Their bias is great.
Well, my professional publications are part of the public record. Contact me and I will send you the search parameters.
If you can detect any bias in the reports that I have authored, or have been a co-contrtibutor, be my guest. You can parade every misstep that I have made in any venue you wish.
Atheism, and I will speak boldly here, is a psychological crutch for people who want to be left alone.
Now that is funny. Consider the fact that most of the world's 5+ billion people express some adherence to a spiritual being, you are either exhibiting false modesty, or you don't think before you write.
Your pronouncment is hardly bold.
Soviet Union has never placed dictators in other countries.
...or Taliban.
The leaders of Eastern Europe and the asian buffer countries were all hand picked by Stalin. Their successors were all elevated to their positions by the Kremlin.
How could it if the whole point was to support popular revolutions of the proletariat?
Sure. Whatever.
Yes, often those revolutions ended up with a dictator in power.
But these were all revolutions of the proletariat! They couldn't possibly be ruled by dictators if they had their trusty "communism" ointment to protect them.
And often the USSR supported an existing dictator if he promised to move towards communism.
Yeah, I remember that East German dictator who rose independently to power after WWII.
What was his name again?
But I don't recall the USSR doing anything like the US did with Saddam...
Did you get the model number of Saddam's tanks?
They were Soviet-built T-72s.
Amazing coincidence. The Americans didn't support the Taliban either.
It never supported militant groups or rogue countries just to piss off the US.
You aren't a student Cuban or African history, are you?
Yes, I have found evidence enough to confirm everything said about god in the bible.
Great! As Joseph Campbell said, "Follow your bliss".
So you have a choice, believe me to be a lunatic who hears voices (-1 Troll. feel free, I don't care), or maybe I'm right.
Despite what theists believe about atheists, many of us find the study of religion to be interesting. Consider the fact that, as far as we know, humans are the only biological organism on the planet that has a religious behavior and you have the foundation for a scientific study of religiosity.
I don't consider religious belief to be a mental disease.
All I can tell you is that the truth is out there and you will find it if you look.
This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the theist-atheist discussion. You and other theists consider our lack of religiousity as a sign of incomplete training. As I said before, I can only speak for atheists I know, but many of us are former theists. I was a Christian until I could no longer answer "yes" to the most fundamental question in religion: "Do I have faith?
"... want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people."
And God is quite happy to leave you alone too. You don't want god to interfere? fine he wont. He is quite happy to let you live out your life oblivious to his influence.
Fine by me. I am exercising my free will by asking for proof. Faith isn't compelling evidence for me.
"... not because we fear for our fate after we die."
I do not do good out of fear that if I do something bad I will be sent to hell.
No, but it is a theistic propensity to use the threat of an unpleasant afterlife as a tool of persuasion. Not particularly effective threat if the target doesn't believe in an afterlife, I can tell you.
Nothing I do in this place will have any impact on what happens to me. A God who I claim to be able to create this place does not need me to do anything in order to win his favour, what could I possibly offer that would be pleasing enough. No, he just wants me, warts and all.
Good enough. I'm glad you have decided to relax your grip on the material world, even just a little bit.
By the same token, don't judge christianity based on the behaviour of christians.
I try to avoid judging people based on their affiliation, but their behavior tends to complicate that task.
We are just like you, no better, no worse. Able to ignore our conscience and capable of the same atrocities.
That has been my experience as well.
Atheists are religious.
And dogs are cats; yes, I know.
They believe in the religion of no God.
I *was* a Christian before I returned to atheism and I feel pretty confident that a religion without a god isn't a religion. It may be a philosophy, but it isn't a belief in the supernatural.
While the "religious" have faith in God, the atheists have faith in no God.
I hope you aren't a religious person. Because if you are, you are comparing my "belief" with your "faith". I don't know many religious people who hold their faith so cheaply.
Neither can prove their belief.
Well if that is the objective standard for the existence or non-existence of a being, then let me introduce you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Only the faithful can see the IPU. The IPU will bring you sadness and joy, life after death, and will ward off all evil spirits.
Prove to me that the IPU doesn't exist.
IPU2U2
Atheists are religious.
And dogs are cats; yes, I know.
They believe in the religion of no God.
I *was* a Christian before I returned to atheism and I feel pretty confident that a religion without a god isn't a religion. It may be a philosophy, but it isn't a belief in the supernatural.
While the "religious" have faith in God, the atheists have faith in no God.
I hope you aren't a religious person. Because if you are, you are comparing my "belief" with your "faith". I don't know many religious people who hold their faith so cheaply.
Well if that is the objective standard for the existence or non-existence of a being, then let me introduce you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Only the faithful can see the IPU. The IPU will bring you sadness and joy, life after death, and will ward off all evil spirits.
Prove to me that the IPU doesn't exist.
IPU2U2
The way you said it could be offending to Iranians.
I am an American. My very *existance* is offensive to many Iranians.
Saddam used chemical weapons supplied by the West.
And he used them. Your point?
I'm not sure what are implying by the word "pounding".
Let's see: Iraq invading from the west and engaging in a war of attrition that left both sides in a stalemate. Artillery shelling (thanks to Gerald V. Bull), wave after wave of blind attacks, aerial assults...
I call that "pounding". But they gave as well as they took.
You haven't read the Bible much have you?
Cover to cover, several times.
That's actually a pretty good description of God in his own words according the old testament.
True, but I think the parent poster is a supporter of ID. If that is the case, then I doubt seriously that they are Jewish. Christians view god as a nice old man with a white, fluffy beard. The god of the old testament is indeed very human in his characteristics.
You are reaching with that conclusion. *No* physical evidence. How about the Big Bang?
How about it? Is this just another appeal for "God in the Gaps"?
Bias is on both sides.
How so? You have irrefutable evidence of god's existence? Something testable and falsifiable?
I have an open mind. Fill it with something other than speculation and you will be able to convince me.
"Atheists want nothing more than to live their lives without God so they can live a life without any ultimate consequences."
Atheists (and I can only speak for the ones I know) want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people. They don't belive in god, so the threat of any "ultimate consequences" is moot.
We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die.
(What's your bet for the year that Iran detonates its first nuclear bomb? My bet is 2008.)
I'd say that is just about right.
They have the same equipment vendor as Pakistan.
This has been going on forever.
How true, but this applies to everyone equally.
For every petty dictator we supported in the Cold War, there was a petty dictator supported by the Soviet Union as well. I noticed that East Germany was absent from your listing. There are many more in that listing as well, I assure you.
And what about colonies? Every major power in Europe was just itching to get into Africa in a big way. Do you think they brought the natives foreign aid?
How do you rate the French involvement in Algeria or the Ivory Coast?
To contantly jump on the US for having made poor decisions as a nation undermines the great sacrifice that American citizens have made in keeping major conflict from arriving at everyone's doors world-wide. You and I can criticize the decisions as ill-informed or malevolent, but please don't forget that the US doesn't make them without perceived threats from abroad.
There are still Americans who believe in John Adams proclaimation that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
Living up to that proclaimation has been difficult and has meant the sacrifice of a nations treasure.
It is just saying the atheism is untenable when looking at the information found in nature.
That statement is contradicted by the information we find in nature. There is *no* physical evidence that god exists or it would have been broadcast to the entire world in multiple venues. What you consider evidence is just how you apply your own filter to the data that exists. When you look at an eye, you apply your filter by saying "Nothing that complex could be created by random events". The facts , however, are far different from your filter.
So, because the US supported Saddam previously, that means it should negate all hostilities, no matter the reason?
A rather poor attempt to change the subject, don't you think? You original assertion was that [paraphrasing]"nobody in the world but the US cared about the Kurds being gassed, and it took US intervention to save these poor people from Saddam".
My comment addressed only this aspect of your entire post. I do believe we should have brought down the regime, but I also believe that the reasons the Administration gave for initiating action were contrived and did not serve our foreign policy interests well.
I thought we should have intervened because there wouldn't have been anyone left alive in the country if the sanctions were dragged out indefinately. But those sanctions were imposed and maintained by a world body who did not want to accept responsibility for deposing an absolutely rutheless prick.