"Any time someone tells you about something that happened in the past, you have to either BELIEVE that or not."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
When I use the word "believe," it's a concession to the evidence, which is strong enough to convince me. I try not to use it too much. I believe that the laws of physics were the same millions (and billions) of years ago because all the observable evidence of the universe points to the laws of physics being static, up until a few picoseconds after the initial event (beyond that, without data, I don't speculate. You may place any creators you wish within that box, but be prepared to be questioned about evidence). When someone says that they believe in ID, it (generally) means that they believe it in spite of the strong evidence suggesting that natural selection occurs, or believe it due to an erroneous or incomplete knowledge of the processes involved. Behe's irreducible complexity has already been discredited, for instance, yet the argument is commonly used to support the idea of ID as a scientific theory.
The statement that all evidence from the past must be believed because it cannot be demonstrated is argumentative twaddle. Do you, then, believe that photographs, film, etc. are not really recordings of the past? How about physical measurements of blue shift, or argon-potassium dating? Do you believe that recorded evidence that says that experiments done to determine gravitation, velocity, etc. will end with different results than those previously recorded? I do not succumb to belief, I acknowledge evidence. When and if there is positive, reproducable, experimental evidence of ID, I will acknowledge it as well.
Be well.
"...history has yet to contradict ID, and it has yet to definitively contradict evolution." This implies that the two are on the same footing. The reason nobody has definitively contradicted evolution is that the evidence, by and large, supports it. The exact mechanisms, timing and minutiae are still subject to debate, but that basic premise is still very sound. To imply that ID has not been contradicted is silly. The idea is not subject to contradiction, because, as an unprovable "supernatural" idea, there is no contradiction that could successfully be demonstrated, any more than one could be mounted against my admittedly facetious example. In order to contradict a true theory, we must disprove the examined evidence. There is no examined evidence for ID (and no matter how you slice it, it's still creationism). My idea is unfalsifiable; it must, therefore, have merit. BTW, why is the idea of a universe emanating from the anus of a primate less stupid than one created by a supernatural all-powerful deity, if there is no evidence for either? I have no problem with discussing ID. We're doing it right now. The problem I have is with pretending that the discussion of ID is a scientific one. It isn't. It is, at best, a philosophical one. The danger is in taking a philosophy and attempting to fit it into the box marked "science" without anything to keep it there on its own merits.
"...the poor theology of many Evolutionists." This is a profoundly empty statement. The idea that I don't show "respect" to your stories and myths has nothing to do with their validity. If you have to demand "respect" for these stories in order for them to be valid, then they simply don't have the strength to stand on their own merits. How much "respect" should I have for animistic religions, or those which teach that earthquakes are caused by a great catfish, or that lightning is sent by a horny old god who impregnates women disguised as a shower of gold? These stories are fanciful but have no validity as science. They are entertaining but have no validity as science. The discussion here is whether proponents of ID have any cause to be indignant that their story about a supernatural "creator" isn't taken seriously as science. It isn't, because it isn't science. By the way, if I'm just parroting memes, please quote chapter and verse the passages that support the *scientific* basis for intelligent design.
"How did life start" is a reasonable question to ask, and may be explored in a scientific manner. This does not mean that ALL ideas about how life started are scientific by definition. Ideas that state, for instance, that life sprang fully formed out of the ass of a gargantuan orangutan may be posited, but the lack of any evidence supporting the existence of such an orangutan or its scat makes it just another stupid idea. If your hypothesis doesn't have any evidence to support it, it is not a theory. The fact that the other guy's theory doesn't have 100% of the answers does not mean that your idea has merit by default. You must still provide verifiable evidence to support your claim, or it's just a claim. If you try to pass that off as science, you deserve to be mocked.
GAAAH! I tried to not yell, but this got me. Fossils are not a direct timeline, because the process of fossilization is (wait for it) RANDOM. Therefore, there will be species that seem to appear out of nowhere, because none of their direct ancestors were lucky enough to be fossilized. Also, where do you get the idea that no fossils are being made today? First, define "today." When we speak of fossils, we cover many millions of years. There are human fossils within the last 1500 years, if you need proof. Ever heard of a city called Pompeii? If there is any impediment to the fossilization of humans today, it is the tendency of humans to interfere in the process by preparing and burying their dead in conditions that encourage return to the environment. Without us digging them up, there's no evidence to suggest that pharoahs would not have become fossilized. In a way, they were already on the journey to being so, aided by the peculiar rituals of the ancient Egyptians. Quit taking a short view and calling it adequate evidence of the long one. On the first point: "...many evolutionists BELIEVE that Darwinism is a fact." Let me clear this up for you. I've never met an evolutionist. It's not a field or a profession. But those of us who accept evolution as a reasonable explanation for the development and diversity of life on this planet do so because it long ago passed the "hypothesis" stage and became a theory in the truest sense of the word. It withstands scrutiny, is supported by observable fact and accurately reflects known outcomes. It is not, however, a "theory" in the sense that ID proponents incorrectly use the term; any old idea that comes into your head, without any need for support, substantiation or experimental proof. There is always debate about a real theory. That's what makes it robust. But a true theory, like that of natural selection, survives such debate the richer, with even more detail and elegance.
Actually, that's the result of some editing from the original submission. The actual article states that the number of requests for letters, which are typically requested for the purpose of identifying potential terrorist threats, increased substantially. There was nothing in the article (or my submission) which stated that the actual incidence of terrorists being located had changed. I agree that the phrasing is misleading on the face of it, but the intent was to show that government intrusion had vastly increased with official sanction since the enactment of the Patriot Act, much like the incidence of prosecution for homosexual behavior in the Army increased after the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Proof once again that laws having to do with personal behavior are designed to control it, not allow it.
"When was the last time you crossed a bridge? Did you first check for evidence that the bridge was safe to cross? The people who were on that bridge in Minneapolis recently BELIEVED it was safe. Most bridges are, but nobody checked for evidence that the bridge was safe on the day it collapsed. When was the last time you checked whether the brakes on your car hadn't been tampered with and would stop the car when applied? Your life mostly revolves around faith, not evidence. I'll bet you don't check any bridges either for evidence of their safety. You BELIEVE that the bridge is safe for various reasons, but you cannot KNOW if it won't collapse just when you drive across it."
Don't mistake what is essentially risk assessment to be faith. It's a simple equation, based on the actual incidence of occurrence. Lets break this one down, just as an example. When I cross a bridge, in the back of my head, unconsciously, there are several assessments. First, the number of bridges I've crossed in the past without incident. Second, the likelihood of a spontaneous failure of a bridge overall, then tempered by the number of times I find myself on it. Third, the general nature of bridge construction, which is a very old and well-detailed engineering problem, coupled with the desire of the state/municipality and the contractor not to be sued for negligence. Fourth, my knowledge of local maintenance and/or tax issues associated with road maintenance (in this area, the scales have tipped a little, given reports that maintenance of infrastructure is not optimal; I find myself on the Alaskan Way Viaduct with some regularity, and think about it from time to time). Overall, the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor, requiring little if any faith. No activity is risk-free, and only a moron expects otherwise. This, however, is a statistically minute risk. No faith, just experience and judgement. By the way, on the second point, my brakes were done last month, including new rotors. That's just maintenance, just like the bridge, and the risk assessment is the same. I can't predict sabotage, and worrying about it is paranoia. Again, statistical likelihood very low, unless my friends all think I'm an asshole. Then I check once in a while.
"Evolutionists never address the origin of the laws of nature. We humans make laws, using our mind. The only evidence we have for the origination of laws and other information is that of a mind."
First sentence patently untrue. Science constantly questions just those things. Just because we don't understand a thing does not mean there is not a rational explanation. Second sentence, misinterpretation. We don't make the laws, we discover them and interpret their meaning. Third sentence, god of the gaps, a common logical fallacy. I don't understand, therefore it must be supernatural or divine. This is not positive evidence for the supernatural, just incomplete knowledge of the natural. Just as the rising sun, rain, crop growth and the paths of the planets were once ascribed to deities, now the origins (if any) of the universe are attributed to some invisible creature outside the laws of physics and rational detection. I can see that you are set in your thinking, as I'm sure you feel I am. Take care, be well, and next time, try to bring some evidence with you.
"Of course any assumption is faith. You have faith that Jesus was wrong and I have faith that He was right."
An excellent point. This is why I don't assume. I don't have faith that Jesus was wrong. I see no evidence to suggest that anyone named Jesus was in fact supernatural in any way. The remainder of that paragraph, by the way, engages in the same sort of argumentative drivel common among theists, wherein you proceed to argue from points not yet proven, namely that the god this Jesus claimed to be related to and speaking for actually existed, a point for which there is also no evidence.
"If your belief is right, we'll both simply go out of existence. That btw. is unscientific. In nature NOTHING goes out of existence. The small matter of conservation laws precludes this."
This is a ridiculous argument. Don't try to base discussion on physical laws you don't understand. Don't attempt to confuse the continued existence of the component parts of a physical body, either as individual molecules or as expended energy once we are ingested and digested by various microorganisms with the continued existence of a consciousness tied to that physical body. Once again, you have failed to show any evidence of the survival of consciousness outside the body. The remainder of the argument is nothing but unsupported woo, designed to scare the gullible.
I don't choose to have faith in anything. I choose to see what the evidence shows me. If the evidence is then proven wrong, I am forced to rethink my perspective. This is a good thing. It keeps me from being stagnant, or, more dangerously, dogmatic. I invite you, sir: give me evidence--reproduceable, verifiable, experimental evidence of any supernatural occurrence. In the absence of such evidence, I retain the right to dismiss your entire argument as twaddle. Unless you have something more substantiative than platitudes and implied threats of eternal punishment, we're done here. Take care.
"The terrible part will be that if you are wrong, you will suffer the consequences forever, without the slightest possibility to change anything about your situation. It is either you are wrong, or Jesus Christ is wrong. He had a lot to say about the continuation of the soul. One of these was:
Matthew 16:26 For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
Provided that Jesus turns out to be the right prophet, for the right god. It could be that both of us were wrong. It's not a straight black or white proposition, a common logical fallacy among theists.
"Pascal's wager is real. If you lose that gamble, it will be a terrible loss for you. If I lose by simply no longer being a conscious entity, that is no loss at all."
Pascal's wager is a logical fallacy in and of itself. It posits only two possibilities: the existence or nonexistence of the Christian god. It leaves out the possibility that the bible is wrong about the nature of god (it could be malicious rather than loving), or about god's desire to see humanity simper and worship (it could care less about what we think of it), or the god Pascal asks me to wager on could be the wrong one (wouldn't Baal be pissed if we were giving obeisance to Jahweh, the way Allah is supposed to be?). Further, Pascal's wager asks me to hedge my bets against the possibility that the Christian god is real and asks me to act as if I believe, with no more evidence than this argument. The problem is, any god worth its salt could tell if I wasn't being sincere in my belief, would know that I am just doing it to save my skin, and would damn me for that. So, logically, Pascal's wager is a sucker bet.
"Right now, while still here, you can decide by FAITH, to accept forgiveness or reject by unbelief. That decision will determine in which of the two places you will spend your eternity. Do you KNOW and are you SURE of your position? Are you willing to take the gamble? The odds are against you."
Once again, your argument assumes that these places exist, that consciousness survives the physical body and that the fate of said consciousness is either one or the other. You've provided no evidence for the existence of either, nor for the deity that supposedly asks me to make the sucker's bet. The odds are not against me. There are no odds. There is evidence, and lack thereof. If I see evidence of one or another god or any other supernatural phenomenon, I'll change my position and offer my worship to that deity, should it require it. I won't, however, base my behavior on the commands of a book which offers no proof of its veracity, and which asks me to behave in a manner which is at odds with morality, such as Jesus' tacit approval of slavery, or many old testament examples of atrocities committed by or for the deity.
"They are answers alright. I know that for myself, the Christian answers are much more comforting. Your answers are basically the same as the proposed answers any evolutionist might give. I suppose that in a 100 years from now or less we'll both know who had the correct answers."
Hm. Two things. First, you've put religion into a neat nutshell for me. It's comforting. Doesn't have a lot of facts, but makes me feel better about my fear of dying.
Second, if I am right, and there is no soul, in a hundred years give or take we expressly WON'T know who had correct answers, since we will no longer be conscious to give it any thought. The only way we know is if I'm wrong.
Although the previous comments were true to the best of my knowledge, it seems that Bob Woodward has done it again. In examining tapes of phone conversations recorded by then-President Nixon, Gerald Ford is found to be an unwavering friend of the embattled leader, and promises help in any form during Nixon's crisis. It turns out that the two were fast friends, more so than even Washington insiders knew, and that this, more than the good of the country, may have influenced Ford's pardon. New info comes to light, and it sheds the blazing light of truth on President Ford. Disappointing, to say the least.
Although President Ford was criticized for his pardon of Nixon, such a decision was not made without extensive soul-searching. Ford felt is was in the best interests of the country not to be embroiled in a complex and potentially destabilizing trial of a former president under the politically-charged aegis of an opportunistic Senate while trying to deal with an increasingly unpopular war in Viet Nam and an oncoming recession. Ford was well aware of the scorn he was likely to receive upon issuing the pardon, and gained absolutely no favor within his own party by doing so. Even his press secretary resigned in protest, and it likely cost him the 1976 election. Ford, however, maintained until his death that pardoning Nixon was the surest way to let the country move on, and that, even with the knowledge that it would ultimately end his political career, he would not have changed his decision. There is, however, evidence that Alexander Haig may have had a hand in influencing the decision, although no specific agreement was made.
Is available here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/05 1220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
Of not is the care Judge Jones takes to blast the Board for their "inanity" in pretending that this issue was about science. The precedents and logic are elegant and impeccable. The judge clearly states that ID will never be science. A victory for logic!
Haven't been able to find any information about CDs distributed by Sony subsidiaries like RCA/BMG, and whether they, too, would be exchanging CDs. Foo Fighters' In Your Honor is carrying the copy protect software, but does not appear on the list of "official" CDs acknowledged by Sony as having the flawed protect software. The site for the copy protect (sunncomm.com) and the label/artist page have no info on whether this CD will be included, along with others published under another label. Or, am I completely off base? Is this a different software altogether? If so, does it have the same vulnerabilities?
A spurious argument at best. "Is X the product of design or natural causes" may indeed be a valid scientific inquiry, but only if there is a mechanism for actually determining the presence or nature of said "designer." If your only argument for a designer is that "it's too complicated for me to understand," then all you have done is create a black box, in which some "creator" made something happen through means that are not measurable. At that point, it is no longer science. This is the same logical fallacy that lead ancients to believe that Apollo must be riding the sun across the sky, since they didn't know anything about astronomy or planetary rotation. As to the argument about blackened lung tissue, the method by which the specific cause of damage is determined would be a scientific one, with examination and experimentation. Nobody would say that the lungs were blackened because some deity "decided to roast them in the body, but we just have to take that on faith, because there's no way to measure it." Lastly, just because a process is scientific, it is not necessarily amoral. Your last comment is trolling, pure and simple. It's the same argument used everywhere else, that the evil Athiest scientists have no moral compass and are no better than Nazis in their morality. I refer you to such philosophers as Kai Nielson, whose "Ethics Without God" should be required reading.
Of course we don't know everything "beyond any doubt." Those who study true science don't claim to know everything. We do, however, feel that some actual evidence would be helpful. ID is *not* a theory. It is a belief system. A theory can be experimentally proven or disproven. Unless you have some way of producing a "designer" (and I challenge you to make any argument about ID that doesn't involve some form of deity), and that "designer" is directly observable in the commission of its works of creation, then there is no actual theory. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it has to be fabricated. Just because biology is complicated doesn't mean that it cannot be a natural process. There is, in fact overwhelming evidence suggesting that evolution is a viable theory, and it continues to be validated by current research. It's not complete. It can't be. But it's a hell of a lot more so than the "black box" of ID, in which something supernatural intervenes with intent.
Explore all you want. But don't call it science if it isn't.
Argue all you want. But if you want to do so with people who understand their position better than you do, then at least take the time to learn a little logic.
As a followup to my post, here is the webpage for the Kansas Board of Education: http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/Welcome.html. There are links to each member's email address. Feel free to send them reasoned, realistic arguments for why the State of Kansas has just become the most ridiculous joke in education since Scopes.
There's nothing wrong with being critical of evolution or any other theory. There is active debate in the community about the mechanisms of evolution, including Phillip Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" model. what Kansas has done, however, is used the blanket of "criticism" to espouse a belief system that requires supernatural intervention, and required that this supernatural force be included in the teaching of science. I have nothing against teaching religion, philosophy, etc. Just don't teach it in SCIENCE classes. It isn't science, can't be science, has no place next to science. It's religion, no matter what blanket you wrap it in.
Einstein also made the mistake of disregarding certain critical elements of his own theories because they did not fit with his spiritual view of the world. While brilliant, the man was not immune to blindness caused by dogma.
The difference is, there is a wealth of empirical evidence for evolution. The whole of the ID argument is that evolution is too complicated, so there must be a supernatural intervention. There is no experimental or even logical evidence for a designer (creator), nor any explanation for how such a design was made manifest, guided, or executed, not to mention what happened with all the colossal fuckups in the chain of living things.
Just so you know: While helicobacter pylori is partially responsible for the formation of peptic ulcers, it is only one factor in a long list. Low gastric pH is a necessity for H. Pylori to grow, but ulcers may arise from such other stimulants as the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatories, alcohol or cigarette smoking. One of the triad of therapies used in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease is proton pump inhibition, which raises gastric pH and allows for normal mucosal healing.
Having said that, Dr. Marshall and Warren are more than deserving of their Nobel Prize.
You, on the other hand, need a little education in logic, not to mention medicine.
This title was clearly designed for a console release rather than a PC-dedicated release as the first title was. Biggest gripe? Save points. It has a save-anywhere feature, but doing so takes you back to the beginning of a section rather than freezing at a point you want, such as just before you grab the item that will spawn a million or so enemies. I don't like having to see the same scenery over and over again just to get to one spot. Save that for the XBoxers.
I agree that the weapons are underpowered in terms of feel, although some seem unreasonably strong, particularly the double-barreled shotgun, which has near-unerring accuracy at half a mile with no loss of power.
Other than that, pure mindless fun; didn't really expect anything else from SS2. It seems, however, that the inventiveness that made SS such a hit kind of took a dip, probably for the same reason Netricsa gives for having a voice now: "Bigger Game Budget." The Croteam guys probably had suits looking over their shoulders this time, whereas they were able to roll under the radar with SS.
Apparently, the British have their own version of Jack Thompson. Once again, let's make the game companies responsible for the failure of parents to moderate their children.
Judicial oversight in this day and age means nothing, since the President seemingly only nominates partisan yes men (or women, as the case may be) to the Supreme Court. And while I'm aware that Ms. Meiers will not be serving, I suggest that the next puppet (uh, I mean nominee) will be just as much of a threat to separation of powers. If the justices on the Supreme Court are only mouthpieces for the current administration, then that administration has nearly unlimited power to remove or substantially alter civil rights, especially when both houses of the Legislature are controlled by the same party as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson is a member of the German Parliament now?
"Any time someone tells you about something that happened in the past, you have to either BELIEVE that or not." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. When I use the word "believe," it's a concession to the evidence, which is strong enough to convince me. I try not to use it too much. I believe that the laws of physics were the same millions (and billions) of years ago because all the observable evidence of the universe points to the laws of physics being static, up until a few picoseconds after the initial event (beyond that, without data, I don't speculate. You may place any creators you wish within that box, but be prepared to be questioned about evidence). When someone says that they believe in ID, it (generally) means that they believe it in spite of the strong evidence suggesting that natural selection occurs, or believe it due to an erroneous or incomplete knowledge of the processes involved. Behe's irreducible complexity has already been discredited, for instance, yet the argument is commonly used to support the idea of ID as a scientific theory. The statement that all evidence from the past must be believed because it cannot be demonstrated is argumentative twaddle. Do you, then, believe that photographs, film, etc. are not really recordings of the past? How about physical measurements of blue shift, or argon-potassium dating? Do you believe that recorded evidence that says that experiments done to determine gravitation, velocity, etc. will end with different results than those previously recorded? I do not succumb to belief, I acknowledge evidence. When and if there is positive, reproducable, experimental evidence of ID, I will acknowledge it as well. Be well.
"...history has yet to contradict ID, and it has yet to definitively contradict evolution." This implies that the two are on the same footing. The reason nobody has definitively contradicted evolution is that the evidence, by and large, supports it. The exact mechanisms, timing and minutiae are still subject to debate, but that basic premise is still very sound. To imply that ID has not been contradicted is silly. The idea is not subject to contradiction, because, as an unprovable "supernatural" idea, there is no contradiction that could successfully be demonstrated, any more than one could be mounted against my admittedly facetious example. In order to contradict a true theory, we must disprove the examined evidence. There is no examined evidence for ID (and no matter how you slice it, it's still creationism). My idea is unfalsifiable; it must, therefore, have merit. BTW, why is the idea of a universe emanating from the anus of a primate less stupid than one created by a supernatural all-powerful deity, if there is no evidence for either? I have no problem with discussing ID. We're doing it right now. The problem I have is with pretending that the discussion of ID is a scientific one. It isn't. It is, at best, a philosophical one. The danger is in taking a philosophy and attempting to fit it into the box marked "science" without anything to keep it there on its own merits.
"...the poor theology of many Evolutionists." This is a profoundly empty statement. The idea that I don't show "respect" to your stories and myths has nothing to do with their validity. If you have to demand "respect" for these stories in order for them to be valid, then they simply don't have the strength to stand on their own merits. How much "respect" should I have for animistic religions, or those which teach that earthquakes are caused by a great catfish, or that lightning is sent by a horny old god who impregnates women disguised as a shower of gold? These stories are fanciful but have no validity as science. They are entertaining but have no validity as science. The discussion here is whether proponents of ID have any cause to be indignant that their story about a supernatural "creator" isn't taken seriously as science. It isn't, because it isn't science. By the way, if I'm just parroting memes, please quote chapter and verse the passages that support the *scientific* basis for intelligent design.
"How did life start" is a reasonable question to ask, and may be explored in a scientific manner. This does not mean that ALL ideas about how life started are scientific by definition. Ideas that state, for instance, that life sprang fully formed out of the ass of a gargantuan orangutan may be posited, but the lack of any evidence supporting the existence of such an orangutan or its scat makes it just another stupid idea. If your hypothesis doesn't have any evidence to support it, it is not a theory. The fact that the other guy's theory doesn't have 100% of the answers does not mean that your idea has merit by default. You must still provide verifiable evidence to support your claim, or it's just a claim. If you try to pass that off as science, you deserve to be mocked.
GAAAH! I tried to not yell, but this got me. Fossils are not a direct timeline, because the process of fossilization is (wait for it) RANDOM. Therefore, there will be species that seem to appear out of nowhere, because none of their direct ancestors were lucky enough to be fossilized. Also, where do you get the idea that no fossils are being made today? First, define "today." When we speak of fossils, we cover many millions of years. There are human fossils within the last 1500 years, if you need proof. Ever heard of a city called Pompeii? If there is any impediment to the fossilization of humans today, it is the tendency of humans to interfere in the process by preparing and burying their dead in conditions that encourage return to the environment. Without us digging them up, there's no evidence to suggest that pharoahs would not have become fossilized. In a way, they were already on the journey to being so, aided by the peculiar rituals of the ancient Egyptians. Quit taking a short view and calling it adequate evidence of the long one. On the first point: "...many evolutionists BELIEVE that Darwinism is a fact." Let me clear this up for you. I've never met an evolutionist. It's not a field or a profession. But those of us who accept evolution as a reasonable explanation for the development and diversity of life on this planet do so because it long ago passed the "hypothesis" stage and became a theory in the truest sense of the word. It withstands scrutiny, is supported by observable fact and accurately reflects known outcomes. It is not, however, a "theory" in the sense that ID proponents incorrectly use the term; any old idea that comes into your head, without any need for support, substantiation or experimental proof. There is always debate about a real theory. That's what makes it robust. But a true theory, like that of natural selection, survives such debate the richer, with even more detail and elegance.
Actually, that's the result of some editing from the original submission. The actual article states that the number of requests for letters, which are typically requested for the purpose of identifying potential terrorist threats, increased substantially. There was nothing in the article (or my submission) which stated that the actual incidence of terrorists being located had changed. I agree that the phrasing is misleading on the face of it, but the intent was to show that government intrusion had vastly increased with official sanction since the enactment of the Patriot Act, much like the incidence of prosecution for homosexual behavior in the Army increased after the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Proof once again that laws having to do with personal behavior are designed to control it, not allow it.
I couldn't figure out why Gmail notifier for firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/173 wasn't working. There's no clear comment on the mozilla pages.
Don't mistake what is essentially risk assessment to be faith. It's a simple equation, based on the actual incidence of occurrence. Lets break this one down, just as an example. When I cross a bridge, in the back of my head, unconsciously, there are several assessments. First, the number of bridges I've crossed in the past without incident. Second, the likelihood of a spontaneous failure of a bridge overall, then tempered by the number of times I find myself on it. Third, the general nature of bridge construction, which is a very old and well-detailed engineering problem, coupled with the desire of the state/municipality and the contractor not to be sued for negligence. Fourth, my knowledge of local maintenance and/or tax issues associated with road maintenance (in this area, the scales have tipped a little, given reports that maintenance of infrastructure is not optimal; I find myself on the Alaskan Way Viaduct with some regularity, and think about it from time to time). Overall, the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor, requiring little if any faith. No activity is risk-free, and only a moron expects otherwise. This, however, is a statistically minute risk. No faith, just experience and judgement. By the way, on the second point, my brakes were done last month, including new rotors. That's just maintenance, just like the bridge, and the risk assessment is the same. I can't predict sabotage, and worrying about it is paranoia. Again, statistical likelihood very low, unless my friends all think I'm an asshole. Then I check once in a while.
"Evolutionists never address the origin of the laws of nature. We humans make laws, using our mind. The only evidence we have for the origination of laws and other information is that of a mind."First sentence patently untrue. Science constantly questions just those things. Just because we don't understand a thing does not mean there is not a rational explanation. Second sentence, misinterpretation. We don't make the laws, we discover them and interpret their meaning. Third sentence, god of the gaps, a common logical fallacy. I don't understand, therefore it must be supernatural or divine. This is not positive evidence for the supernatural, just incomplete knowledge of the natural. Just as the rising sun, rain, crop growth and the paths of the planets were once ascribed to deities, now the origins (if any) of the universe are attributed to some invisible creature outside the laws of physics and rational detection. I can see that you are set in your thinking, as I'm sure you feel I am. Take care, be well, and next time, try to bring some evidence with you.
An excellent point. This is why I don't assume. I don't have faith that Jesus was wrong. I see no evidence to suggest that anyone named Jesus was in fact supernatural in any way. The remainder of that paragraph, by the way, engages in the same sort of argumentative drivel common among theists, wherein you proceed to argue from points not yet proven, namely that the god this Jesus claimed to be related to and speaking for actually existed, a point for which there is also no evidence.
"If your belief is right, we'll both simply go out of existence. That btw. is unscientific. In nature NOTHING goes out of existence. The small matter of conservation laws precludes this."This is a ridiculous argument. Don't try to base discussion on physical laws you don't understand. Don't attempt to confuse the continued existence of the component parts of a physical body, either as individual molecules or as expended energy once we are ingested and digested by various microorganisms with the continued existence of a consciousness tied to that physical body. Once again, you have failed to show any evidence of the survival of consciousness outside the body. The remainder of the argument is nothing but unsupported woo, designed to scare the gullible.
I don't choose to have faith in anything. I choose to see what the evidence shows me. If the evidence is then proven wrong, I am forced to rethink my perspective. This is a good thing. It keeps me from being stagnant, or, more dangerously, dogmatic. I invite you, sir: give me evidence--reproduceable, verifiable, experimental evidence of any supernatural occurrence. In the absence of such evidence, I retain the right to dismiss your entire argument as twaddle. Unless you have something more substantiative than platitudes and implied threats of eternal punishment, we're done here. Take care.
Provided that Jesus turns out to be the right prophet, for the right god. It could be that both of us were wrong. It's not a straight black or white proposition, a common logical fallacy among theists.
"Pascal's wager is real. If you lose that gamble, it will be a terrible loss for you. If I lose by simply no longer being a conscious entity, that is no loss at all."
Pascal's wager is a logical fallacy in and of itself. It posits only two possibilities: the existence or nonexistence of the Christian god. It leaves out the possibility that the bible is wrong about the nature of god (it could be malicious rather than loving), or about god's desire to see humanity simper and worship (it could care less about what we think of it), or the god Pascal asks me to wager on could be the wrong one (wouldn't Baal be pissed if we were giving obeisance to Jahweh, the way Allah is supposed to be?). Further, Pascal's wager asks me to hedge my bets against the possibility that the Christian god is real and asks me to act as if I believe, with no more evidence than this argument. The problem is, any god worth its salt could tell if I wasn't being sincere in my belief, would know that I am just doing it to save my skin, and would damn me for that. So, logically, Pascal's wager is a sucker bet.
"Right now, while still here, you can decide by FAITH, to accept forgiveness or reject by unbelief. That decision will determine in which of the two places you will spend your eternity. Do you KNOW and are you SURE of your position? Are you willing to take the gamble? The odds are against you."
Once again, your argument assumes that these places exist, that consciousness survives the physical body and that the fate of said consciousness is either one or the other. You've provided no evidence for the existence of either, nor for the deity that supposedly asks me to make the sucker's bet. The odds are not against me. There are no odds. There is evidence, and lack thereof. If I see evidence of one or another god or any other supernatural phenomenon, I'll change my position and offer my worship to that deity, should it require it. I won't, however, base my behavior on the commands of a book which offers no proof of its veracity, and which asks me to behave in a manner which is at odds with morality, such as Jesus' tacit approval of slavery, or many old testament examples of atrocities committed by or for the deity.
Hm. Two things. First, you've put religion into a neat nutshell for me. It's comforting. Doesn't have a lot of facts, but makes me feel better about my fear of dying.
Second, if I am right, and there is no soul, in a hundred years give or take we expressly WON'T know who had correct answers, since we will no longer be conscious to give it any thought. The only way we know is if I'm wrong.
Although the previous comments were true to the best of my knowledge, it seems that Bob Woodward has done it again. In examining tapes of phone conversations recorded by then-President Nixon, Gerald Ford is found to be an unwavering friend of the embattled leader, and promises help in any form during Nixon's crisis. It turns out that the two were fast friends, more so than even Washington insiders knew, and that this, more than the good of the country, may have influenced Ford's pardon. New info comes to light, and it sheds the blazing light of truth on President Ford. Disappointing, to say the least.
Although President Ford was criticized for his pardon of Nixon, such a decision was not made without extensive soul-searching. Ford felt is was in the best interests of the country not to be embroiled in a complex and potentially destabilizing trial of a former president under the politically-charged aegis of an opportunistic Senate while trying to deal with an increasingly unpopular war in Viet Nam and an oncoming recession. Ford was well aware of the scorn he was likely to receive upon issuing the pardon, and gained absolutely no favor within his own party by doing so. Even his press secretary resigned in protest, and it likely cost him the 1976 election. Ford, however, maintained until his death that pardoning Nixon was the surest way to let the country move on, and that, even with the knowledge that it would ultimately end his political career, he would not have changed his decision. There is, however, evidence that Alexander Haig may have had a hand in influencing the decision, although no specific agreement was made.
Is available here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/05 1220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
Of not is the care Judge Jones takes to blast the Board for their "inanity" in pretending that this issue was about science. The precedents and logic are elegant and impeccable. The judge clearly states that ID will never be science. A victory for logic!
Haven't been able to find any information about CDs distributed by Sony subsidiaries like RCA/BMG, and whether they, too, would be exchanging CDs. Foo Fighters' In Your Honor is carrying the copy protect software, but does not appear on the list of "official" CDs acknowledged by Sony as having the flawed protect software. The site for the copy protect (sunncomm.com) and the label/artist page have no info on whether this CD will be included, along with others published under another label. Or, am I completely off base? Is this a different software altogether? If so, does it have the same vulnerabilities?
A spurious argument at best. "Is X the product of design or natural causes" may indeed be a valid scientific inquiry, but only if there is a mechanism for actually determining the presence or nature of said "designer." If your only argument for a designer is that "it's too complicated for me to understand," then all you have done is create a black box, in which some "creator" made something happen through means that are not measurable. At that point, it is no longer science. This is the same logical fallacy that lead ancients to believe that Apollo must be riding the sun across the sky, since they didn't know anything about astronomy or planetary rotation. As to the argument about blackened lung tissue, the method by which the specific cause of damage is determined would be a scientific one, with examination and experimentation. Nobody would say that the lungs were blackened because some deity "decided to roast them in the body, but we just have to take that on faith, because there's no way to measure it." Lastly, just because a process is scientific, it is not necessarily amoral. Your last comment is trolling, pure and simple. It's the same argument used everywhere else, that the evil Athiest scientists have no moral compass and are no better than Nazis in their morality. I refer you to such philosophers as Kai Nielson, whose "Ethics Without God" should be required reading.
Of course we don't know everything "beyond any doubt." Those who study true science don't claim to know everything. We do, however, feel that some actual evidence would be helpful. ID is *not* a theory. It is a belief system. A theory can be experimentally proven or disproven. Unless you have some way of producing a "designer" (and I challenge you to make any argument about ID that doesn't involve some form of deity), and that "designer" is directly observable in the commission of its works of creation, then there is no actual theory. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it has to be fabricated. Just because biology is complicated doesn't mean that it cannot be a natural process. There is, in fact overwhelming evidence suggesting that evolution is a viable theory, and it continues to be validated by current research. It's not complete. It can't be. But it's a hell of a lot more so than the "black box" of ID, in which something supernatural intervenes with intent. Explore all you want. But don't call it science if it isn't. Argue all you want. But if you want to do so with people who understand their position better than you do, then at least take the time to learn a little logic.
As a followup to my post, here is the webpage for the Kansas Board of Education: http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/Welcome.html. There are links to each member's email address. Feel free to send them reasoned, realistic arguments for why the State of Kansas has just become the most ridiculous joke in education since Scopes.
There's nothing wrong with being critical of evolution or any other theory. There is active debate in the community about the mechanisms of evolution, including Phillip Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" model. what Kansas has done, however, is used the blanket of "criticism" to espouse a belief system that requires supernatural intervention, and required that this supernatural force be included in the teaching of science. I have nothing against teaching religion, philosophy, etc. Just don't teach it in SCIENCE classes. It isn't science, can't be science, has no place next to science. It's religion, no matter what blanket you wrap it in.
Einstein also made the mistake of disregarding certain critical elements of his own theories because they did not fit with his spiritual view of the world. While brilliant, the man was not immune to blindness caused by dogma.
The difference is, there is a wealth of empirical evidence for evolution. The whole of the ID argument is that evolution is too complicated, so there must be a supernatural intervention. There is no experimental or even logical evidence for a designer (creator), nor any explanation for how such a design was made manifest, guided, or executed, not to mention what happened with all the colossal fuckups in the chain of living things. Just so you know: While helicobacter pylori is partially responsible for the formation of peptic ulcers, it is only one factor in a long list. Low gastric pH is a necessity for H. Pylori to grow, but ulcers may arise from such other stimulants as the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatories, alcohol or cigarette smoking. One of the triad of therapies used in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease is proton pump inhibition, which raises gastric pH and allows for normal mucosal healing. Having said that, Dr. Marshall and Warren are more than deserving of their Nobel Prize. You, on the other hand, need a little education in logic, not to mention medicine.
This title was clearly designed for a console release rather than a PC-dedicated release as the first title was. Biggest gripe? Save points. It has a save-anywhere feature, but doing so takes you back to the beginning of a section rather than freezing at a point you want, such as just before you grab the item that will spawn a million or so enemies. I don't like having to see the same scenery over and over again just to get to one spot. Save that for the XBoxers. I agree that the weapons are underpowered in terms of feel, although some seem unreasonably strong, particularly the double-barreled shotgun, which has near-unerring accuracy at half a mile with no loss of power. Other than that, pure mindless fun; didn't really expect anything else from SS2. It seems, however, that the inventiveness that made SS such a hit kind of took a dip, probably for the same reason Netricsa gives for having a voice now: "Bigger Game Budget." The Croteam guys probably had suits looking over their shoulders this time, whereas they were able to roll under the radar with SS.
Apparently, the British have their own version of Jack Thompson. Once again, let's make the game companies responsible for the failure of parents to moderate their children.
Judicial oversight in this day and age means nothing, since the President seemingly only nominates partisan yes men (or women, as the case may be) to the Supreme Court. And while I'm aware that Ms. Meiers will not be serving, I suggest that the next puppet (uh, I mean nominee) will be just as much of a threat to separation of powers. If the justices on the Supreme Court are only mouthpieces for the current administration, then that administration has nearly unlimited power to remove or substantially alter civil rights, especially when both houses of the Legislature are controlled by the same party as well.