and I agreee with you!
But Scientists fundamentally have the same answer as the Deists. Either something came from nothing or its was always here. Both sound kinda loopy to me as well.
While I don't agree with the 6000 years ago, an objective observer would have to laugh at "scientific" explanation of the universe.
Q:
"Where did the universe come from?"
A:
" Looks the the Big Bang did it all. Things evovled from there."
Q: "Where did the big bang come from?
A: "Basically everything came from nothing."
While the details afterward are different, sounds like the same argument of the Theists. Something came from nothing. I find that hard to believe as well
After Millions of years of evolution, Nature tends converge on the low energy solution to a problem. Using nature as a reference is most likely the best starting point!
So Technically Speaking, it is no different than intelligent design. It is supported only by fancy math (like William A. Dembski for ID) but makes no Testable Scientific Predicitions. We should hold it on the same level as the Religous Right who stand behind ID. Its no more than a religion at this point.
Kinda makes you think about taking up smoking, eh?
What a stupid comment. You really think that lung cancer is a peaceful way to die? Painfully wasting away in a bed isn't much better. I am watching my Mother-in-law go through this with that same attitude.
Never. The dirty little secret is that people who are into linux like typing in cryptic commands for things. It makes them feel smarter. The goal is to never get out of the 70's and always have a dumb terminal ( as in VT100) feel.
You will never see that in linux. That's like asking for a sports car manufactuer (Ferrari, etc.) to make a Family Minivan. They just don't want to.
I may be a Troll but I have yet to see any evidence that what I stated isn't true.:-)
"the only reasons to spew on abou t macro-evolution not being a testable theory are to try to support ID garbage"
No, it is to apply the same skepticism to every idea in science. Why should Macro-evolution be an different? All thoeries, whether you like them or not should be testable and falsifiable. If your idea does not meet that criteria, it is not a thoery, its a conjecture and/or hypothesis. This is what you learn in science class. Just because someone is emotionally involved in a particular concept does not reliquish them from providing the basic criteria for upgrading their idea to a theory.
Any good critical thinking sceintist will show the weak side of his/her research and show it it for what it really is, not what they want it to be.
I could care les about the ID/Evolution debate. When compared to our other great sciences, niether bring much to the table. Both consist of of people who will scream about how right they are but would never admit they don't have much to go on.
Is evolution true? Given the evidence, probably. But it may not have happened as we have thought. There are ALOT of tough question to still answer. Can we elevate the concept to a theory? Hell no. Quantum Electro-dynamics is a great theory. I can make testable predictions about the outcomes of experiments that I set up. Can I do that with evolutionary theory?
What makes you think I am a creationist? Please wipe your chin of the froth.
I am not doubting that Evolution is a plausible explanation, I just don't feel that there is enough evidence to upgrade macro-evolution to a theory. It is not testable. What, wait a million years?? You so sound just like the right wing nuts. "I can prove my explanation is true, we just have to wait long after I am dead to demonstrate it". That sounds exactly like most pseudo-science claims.
Quantum Electrodynamics is a good theory. Macro-evolution is not. Should we not apply the same rules of science (evidence, repeatable experiments, etc) to Macro-evolution as well?
Like I stated before, micro-evolution is sound science. Macro-evolution (like other speculative conjectures such as string theory, etc.) are not theories because they are not testable.
I do not subscribe to any religion nor the 'creation' scenario as many describe it. You appear to be just like them, frothing at the mouth!. I do find it ironic that our modern view of cosmology (i.e. Big Bang) was actually presented by a Priest (a very smart mathematician and physicist!). Even Einstein argued that the big bang was not correct! Over time, Lemaître's idea was accepted ( and ironically now rejected by those of faith) by the scientific mainstream.
Still Frothing? Don't assume everyone is a creation nut.
"Snakes with two heads and people with six fingers per hand are not myths or urban legends. They exist. These major changes are caused by mutations that happened within a single generation."
A snake with 2 heads is still a snake. There is a difference between a mutation that causes something to be malformed vs. a mutation that improves one's ability to be more fit to survive in a particular environment.
Micro-evolution (or adaptation) is very scientific (lots of research, etc). Macro-evolution is not. Just because you can witness small perturbations in a system you cannot assume large perturbations have the same effect. Because of the highly non-linear aspects of chemistry and micro-biology etc, its very unwise to simply extrapolate without have a better knowledge of the system.
While there is some evidence from fossil records, etc. Macro-evolution is a conjecture at best. Its not testable or falsifiable and I would not even call it a theory.
In your statement above, replace intelligent design with macro evolution and religious fundamentalist with mainstream scientist and see how it reads.
The guys fought against OTHERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY for YEARS trying to show that they were right. Religious fundamentalists arent the only ones to exhibit such closed minded properties. As I have stated in other posts, scientists have funding that are dependent on 'success'. I work at a research lab in academia. People aren't always after the truth. They are after way to make the funding keep coming in. I am not saying everyone is like this, but a scientific view that goes against the mainstream tends to loose funding.
Your view of science of this happy place where everyone accepts new ideas no matter your background is somewhat naive.
The fact of the matter is that the universe, as a whole, still contains mysteries which are not yet fully solved. But, that does not mean they are not completely solvable and understandable, and there is no proof otherwise.
There is no proof otherwise? Isn't this the same argument used by ID people who say "you can't prove god doesn't exist?"
So you are claiming that because we have no proof that we can't understand everything, by default we have the capability of understanding everything.
This seems a bit of a stretch given that we have observed very little in the grand scheme of things. My point is that we should not always blindly follow ANY dogma. Even scientists base a lot on conjecture and assumption to make problems simpler. While science has produced a lot of neat stuff, lets not get caught up in the 'system' and think it is without fault.
ID people:
In the beginning, God created the universe.
'Responsible' Scientists
In the beginning, all matter and energy came from an infinitesimally small point and expanded from there.
Both of these arguments are based on a lot of speculation and very little evidence. I am not supporting one or the other, but both arguments are really all that much different from each other. Both require a good deal of assumption. Both require the assumption that either something always existed or something came from nothing.
Neither address the greater question of why did it even happen.
I guess my problem is the holier than thou attitude taken about research. Like I stated before, a lot has to do with meet specific goals and making your research look good to keep funding going.
I can understand why a lot of the completely objective crowd doesnt like this. A lot of the pseudo-science crap out there also stands in the way of real progress. That doesn't mean though that we should not consider greater possibilities and have the nerve to think that maybe we arent as smart as we think and there is some greater out there.
It's amazing to see the bias here. A paper is written about how a lot of other research is wrong, and people automatically start associating it to the ID community. Come on, this does nothing for the progression of the search for the truth.
Realistically, I have been through grad school with a REAL science degree. I now work as a researcher at Penn State University. Even though I am not promoting wierdo pseudo-science, I am not to impressed with the scientific community as well. They pull some of the same crap as the so called morons who have the nerve to believe in a higher power.
Funding for research is tied to so called 'success'. Couple this with a 'bigger dick than you' attitude among academia, and people will publish whatever ever they can to try to show that they were right so the can get more money, or prove that they have a bigger brain.
A lot of controversial research (such as cosmology, etc.) conclusions are based upon very little on both sides. The problem is that a lot of people who have a little bit of science background (like those here) will fight to the death to back upon the mainstream view, even if they have very little first hand knowledge of evidence. After all, most people (including other scientists) take other research papers at face value, afraid to stray and be laughed at.
Do I believe in all the mumbo jumbo psuedo science out there? No Way. Am I always willing to listen to new ideas even if they seem implausible? Sure. The universe is an amazing place. They are so many fundamental questions that science may never answer. We are so arrogant to think that we are even capable of answering everything. Even if the PROCESS of evolution is true as we have theroized, so what? You still can't as the greater questions of why life wants advance. Why does life always seem to find a way to keep going. There is no requirement for life in the current models.
You could watch me playing ball with my daughter from a distance. Models could be formed about how the ball travels, gravity, etc. One could be very accurate about predicting the path of the ball. But, your models cannot tell me why we are playing ball. Why we choose to interact. Why I choose to develop a relationship with my daughter. After all, its not required to propagate the species. This interaction isn't required to get humans higher in the food chain. We could reduce love to electro-chemical processes in the brain, but there still is no answer as to what starts them.
Lets all be a little more open minded here. It's not moronic to recognize the mystery in the universe. Lets not get caught up in the bigger dick competition and enjoy the universe.
While power management can be performed by an OS, the majority of power savings can come from efficient hardware design. Being a chip designer, I know that the power consumption of my device is not highly dependent on the OS I am running, but on how many fast switching transistors I put in the device.
Linux has nothing to do with the power consumption. Good hardware design along with good software (regardless of OS) to switch the device off when not in use is the key to long battery design.
Enough with the glorification of Linux (and OSes in general). Lets give a little attention to the good hardware design. Software people have the easy job. They can simply recompile when something doesn't work. I get my ass beat when we spend 50k on a chip that doesn't work right.
Slashdot Mirror
and I agreee with you! But Scientists fundamentally have the same answer as the Deists. Either something came from nothing or its was always here. Both sound kinda loopy to me as well.
While I don't agree with the 6000 years ago, an objective observer would have to laugh at "scientific" explanation of the universe.
Q:
"Where did the universe come from?"
A:
" Looks the the Big Bang did it all. Things evovled from there."
Q: "Where did the big bang come from?
A: "Basically everything came from nothing."
While the details afterward are different, sounds like the same argument of the Theists. Something came from nothing. I find that hard to believe as well
After Millions of years of evolution, Nature tends converge on the low energy solution to a problem. Using nature as a reference is most likely the best starting point!
So Technically Speaking, it is no different than intelligent design. It is supported only by fancy math (like William A. Dembski for ID) but makes no Testable Scientific Predicitions. We should hold it on the same level as the Religous Right who stand behind ID. Its no more than a religion at this point.
Kinda makes you think about taking up smoking, eh?
What a stupid comment. You really think that lung cancer is a peaceful way to die? Painfully wasting away in a bed isn't much better. I am watching my Mother-in-law go through this with that same attitude.
Never. The dirty little secret is that people who are into linux like typing in cryptic commands for things. It makes them feel smarter. The goal is to never get out of the 70's and always have a dumb terminal ( as in VT100) feel.
:-)
You will never see that in linux. That's like asking for a sports car manufactuer (Ferrari, etc.) to make a Family Minivan. They just don't want to.
I may be a Troll but I have yet to see any evidence that what I stated isn't true.
"the only reasons to spew on abou t macro-evolution not being a testable theory are to try to support ID garbage"
No, it is to apply the same skepticism to every idea in science. Why should Macro-evolution be an different? All thoeries, whether you like them or not should be testable and falsifiable. If your idea does not meet that criteria, it is not a thoery, its a conjecture and/or hypothesis. This is what you learn in science class. Just because someone is emotionally involved in a particular concept does not reliquish them from providing the basic criteria for upgrading their idea to a theory.
Any good critical thinking sceintist will show the weak side of his/her research and show it it for what it really is, not what they want it to be.
I could care les about the ID/Evolution debate. When compared to our other great sciences, niether bring much to the table. Both consist of of people who will scream about how right they are but would never admit they don't have much to go on.
Is evolution true? Given the evidence, probably. But it may not have happened as we have thought. There are ALOT of tough question to still answer. Can we elevate the concept to a theory? Hell no. Quantum Electro-dynamics is a great theory. I can make testable predictions about the outcomes of experiments that I set up. Can I do that with evolutionary theory?
What makes you think I am a creationist? Please wipe your chin of the froth.
I am not doubting that Evolution is a plausible explanation, I just don't feel that there is enough evidence to upgrade macro-evolution to a theory. It is not testable. What, wait a million years?? You so sound just like the right wing nuts. "I can prove my explanation is true, we just have to wait long after I am dead to demonstrate it". That sounds exactly like most pseudo-science claims.
Quantum Electrodynamics is a good theory. Macro-evolution is not. Should we not apply the same rules of science (evidence, repeatable experiments, etc) to Macro-evolution as well?
Like I stated before, micro-evolution is sound science. Macro-evolution (like other speculative conjectures such as string theory, etc.) are not theories because they are not testable.
I do not subscribe to any religion nor the 'creation' scenario as many describe it. You appear to be just like them, frothing at the mouth!. I do find it ironic that our modern view of cosmology (i.e. Big Bang) was actually presented by a Priest (a very smart mathematician and physicist!). Even Einstein argued that the big bang was not correct! Over time, Lemaître's idea was accepted ( and ironically now rejected by those of faith) by the scientific mainstream.
Still Frothing? Don't assume everyone is a creation nut.
"Snakes with two heads and people with six fingers per hand are not myths or urban legends. They exist. These major changes are caused by mutations that happened within a single generation."
A snake with 2 heads is still a snake. There is a difference between a mutation that causes something to be malformed vs. a mutation that improves one's ability to be more fit to survive in a particular environment. Micro-evolution (or adaptation) is very scientific (lots of research, etc). Macro-evolution is not. Just because you can witness small perturbations in a system you cannot assume large perturbations have the same effect. Because of the highly non-linear aspects of chemistry and micro-biology etc, its very unwise to simply extrapolate without have a better knowledge of the system. While there is some evidence from fossil records, etc. Macro-evolution is a conjecture at best. Its not testable or falsifiable and I would not even call it a theory.
In your statement above, replace intelligent design with macro evolution and religious fundamentalist with mainstream scientist and see how it reads. The guys fought against OTHERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY for YEARS trying to show that they were right. Religious fundamentalists arent the only ones to exhibit such closed minded properties. As I have stated in other posts, scientists have funding that are dependent on 'success'. I work at a research lab in academia. People aren't always after the truth. They are after way to make the funding keep coming in. I am not saying everyone is like this, but a scientific view that goes against the mainstream tends to loose funding. Your view of science of this happy place where everyone accepts new ideas no matter your background is somewhat naive.
Based on what? Your personal opinion. I hear religious people say that drivel all of the time. It is based on absolutely nothing.
For the same reason that most people feel that a dog will never understand Maxwell's equations. We look at a dog and say that its brain isn't capable.
What makes you think our brains are the ultimate machine for understanding?
The fact of the matter is that the universe, as a whole, still contains mysteries which are not yet fully solved. But, that does not mean they are not completely solvable and understandable, and there is no proof otherwise.
There is no proof otherwise? Isn't this the same argument used by ID people who say "you can't prove god doesn't exist?"
So you are claiming that because we have no proof that we can't understand everything, by default we have the capability of understanding everything.
This seems a bit of a stretch given that we have observed very little in the grand scheme of things. My point is that we should not always blindly follow ANY dogma. Even scientists base a lot on conjecture and assumption to make problems simpler. While science has produced a lot of neat stuff, lets not get caught up in the 'system' and think it is without fault.
ID people: In the beginning, God created the universe.
'Responsible' Scientists In the beginning, all matter and energy came from an infinitesimally small point and expanded from there.
Both of these arguments are based on a lot of speculation and very little evidence. I am not supporting one or the other, but both arguments are really all that much different from each other. Both require a good deal of assumption. Both require the assumption that either something always existed or something came from nothing. Neither address the greater question of why did it even happen.
I guess my problem is the holier than thou attitude taken about research. Like I stated before, a lot has to do with meet specific goals and making your research look good to keep funding going.
I can understand why a lot of the completely objective crowd doesnt like this. A lot of the pseudo-science crap out there also stands in the way of real progress. That doesn't mean though that we should not consider greater possibilities and have the nerve to think that maybe we arent as smart as we think and there is some greater out there.
We always seems to find what we want to find.
It's amazing to see the bias here. A paper is written about how a lot of other research is wrong, and people automatically start associating it to the ID community. Come on, this does nothing for the progression of the search for the truth.
Realistically, I have been through grad school with a REAL science degree. I now work as a researcher at Penn State University. Even though I am not promoting wierdo pseudo-science, I am not to impressed with the scientific community as well. They pull some of the same crap as the so called morons who have the nerve to believe in a higher power.
Funding for research is tied to so called 'success'. Couple this with a 'bigger dick than you' attitude among academia, and people will publish whatever ever they can to try to show that they were right so the can get more money, or prove that they have a bigger brain.
A lot of controversial research (such as cosmology, etc.) conclusions are based upon very little on both sides. The problem is that a lot of people who have a little bit of science background (like those here) will fight to the death to back upon the mainstream view, even if they have very little first hand knowledge of evidence. After all, most people (including other scientists) take other research papers at face value, afraid to stray and be laughed at.
Do I believe in all the mumbo jumbo psuedo science out there? No Way. Am I always willing to listen to new ideas even if they seem implausible? Sure. The universe is an amazing place. They are so many fundamental questions that science may never answer. We are so arrogant to think that we are even capable of answering everything. Even if the PROCESS of evolution is true as we have theroized, so what? You still can't as the greater questions of why life wants advance. Why does life always seem to find a way to keep going. There is no requirement for life in the current models.
You could watch me playing ball with my daughter from a distance. Models could be formed about how the ball travels, gravity, etc. One could be very accurate about predicting the path of the ball. But, your models cannot tell me why we are playing ball. Why we choose to interact. Why I choose to develop a relationship with my daughter. After all, its not required to propagate the species. This interaction isn't required to get humans higher in the food chain. We could reduce love to electro-chemical processes in the brain, but there still is no answer as to what starts them.
Lets all be a little more open minded here. It's not moronic to recognize the mystery in the universe. Lets not get caught up in the bigger dick competition and enjoy the universe.
While power management can be performed by an OS, the majority of power savings can come from efficient hardware design. Being a chip designer, I know that the power consumption of my device is not highly dependent on the OS I am running, but on how many fast switching transistors I put in the device.
Linux has nothing to do with the power consumption. Good hardware design along with good software (regardless of OS) to switch the device off when not in use is the key to long battery design.
Enough with the glorification of Linux (and OSes in general). Lets give a little attention to the good hardware design. Software people have the easy job. They can simply recompile when something doesn't work. I get my ass beat when we spend 50k on a chip that doesn't work right.
Just what the world needs! Another Linux Distro!