So you are against the freedom of speech of a group based on a supposed "implicit threat" of violence, but you appear to condone actual violence against someone else exercising their freedom of speech? Wtf man?!
It's only because of militant creationists that we need to be militant evolutionists. Keep religion out of our public schools and science classes and we'll happily stop calling you out for it.
For example, claiming that lots of scientists believe in evolution, and use that as a refutation of ID is very bad science (its not scientific at all actually), yet, that's an argument often used.
Actually, that's not used a refutation of ID as a theory at all. It's used as a refutation of the argument that creationists typically trot out to those who are unknowledgeable about such things that there is a serious debate in scientific circles and lack of scientific consensus regarding evolution.
See Project Steve for a humorous yet telling version of this refutation.
It has. For 150 years. That's what you don't get. No one has found rabbits dating back to the Pre-Cambrian. Highly sure no one ever will. You can keep searching though. Let us know what you find.
Next time, try praying your post onto slashdot instead of using your computer to do it. I believe then you'll notice the difference. Oh, and make sure you pray to all the gods, even the ones you don't believe in so you know what us godless people feel like.
Predicting that there will be no rabbits, monkeys, or dogs found dating back to the pre-Cambrian, and then finding some would surely prove concretely that evolutionary theory is incorrect. My guess is that this will never happen.
The study of origins has much in common with criminal forensics. In both cases there are witnesses, both physical and human, the testimony of which must be carefully analyzed. On the basis of such analysis the jury must decide whether to BELIEVE the witnesses for or against conviction.
I'm not aware of any (either in reality or on CSI) modern criminal forensic investigations that ended in the case being closed as "divine intervention" based on the available evidence, or a murder that couldn't be pinned on a human due to the facts being irreducibly complex.
By referring to someone's mention of Reagan or other public figure in this way as "religious", you distort the meaning of the word to being useless and destroying any hope for rational discussion.
The politically correct term is either "ignorant" or "religious whackjob". Please note, the two are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, usually go hand in hand.
You mean the due process that they would have to go through to be convicted regardless of the punishment being capital or not? Maybe I'm just ignorant, but where would the extra expense come from that would cost more than years of food and shelter?
It also prevents us having to spend tax dollars for years and years feeding and housing these criminals, paying for their "rehabilitation treatment" that won't work, etc. Reason number one that I'm for capital punishment: I don't wanna pay for these wastes of flesh.
This is not flamebait but is pretty damn insightful and should be modded as such. I would mod but I've already posted.
When you attempt to hold back science, technology, and knowledge, it will go underground. SOMEONE will work on it, then the only people who will advance it will be the ones who don't give a good damn about your (or anyone's) ethics. I would rather it be Us than Them.
And this is exactly why you should never, ever, ever allow the government to tell you you can't own a gun. It's just freaking incredibly amazing how anti-gun activist either can't understand this or don't think that it's important.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are against the freedom of speech of a group based on a supposed "implicit threat" of violence, but you appear to condone actual violence against someone else exercising their freedom of speech? Wtf man?!
Wow, this sounds like one of those "not even wrong" posts. Except... it is wrong.
It's only because of militant creationists that we need to be militant evolutionists. Keep religion out of our public schools and science classes and we'll happily stop calling you out for it.
Actually, that's not used a refutation of ID as a theory at all. It's used as a refutation of the argument that creationists typically trot out to those who are unknowledgeable about such things that there is a serious debate in scientific circles and lack of scientific consensus regarding evolution.
See Project Steve for a humorous yet telling version of this refutation.
Which god, and how do you know? (Hint: I bet it just happens to be yours and not Zeus, and you can't explain why.)
It has. For 150 years. That's what you don't get. No one has found rabbits dating back to the Pre-Cambrian. Highly sure no one ever will. You can keep searching though. Let us know what you find.
Next time, try praying your post onto slashdot instead of using your computer to do it. I believe then you'll notice the difference. Oh, and make sure you pray to all the gods, even the ones you don't believe in so you know what us godless people feel like.
Predicting that there will be no rabbits, monkeys, or dogs found dating back to the pre-Cambrian, and then finding some would surely prove concretely that evolutionary theory is incorrect. My guess is that this will never happen.
I'm not aware of any (either in reality or on CSI) modern criminal forensic investigations that ended in the case being closed as "divine intervention" based on the available evidence, or a murder that couldn't be pinned on a human due to the facts being irreducibly complex.
By referring to someone's mention of Reagan or other public figure in this way as "religious", you distort the meaning of the word to being useless and destroying any hope for rational discussion.
Also will prevent stealing fingerprints from the reading surface using scotch tape.
*goes back to watching too many movies*
If you have a tornado coming at you, whether or not your tv gets better reception with analog or digital is probably the least of your worries.
Don't forget the other downside about how insecure and easy to hack they'll have to be to interface with that alien technology.
The politically correct term is either "ignorant" or "religious whackjob". Please note, the two are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, usually go hand in hand.
Ideally, that point would be made by the 25% whose kids died because they were denied vaccinations due to the belief that it might cause autism.
You mean the due process that they would have to go through to be convicted regardless of the punishment being capital or not? Maybe I'm just ignorant, but where would the extra expense come from that would cost more than years of food and shelter?
It also prevents us having to spend tax dollars for years and years feeding and housing these criminals, paying for their "rehabilitation treatment" that won't work, etc. Reason number one that I'm for capital punishment: I don't wanna pay for these wastes of flesh.
Seems to be the working plan for our government these days, doesn't it?
Which is the Intelligent Design movement? Hypothesis? Jumping to conclusions? Both? Neither?
Or maybe they just wore a removable ski mask/motorcycle helmet/etc. when standing in front of the ATM camera.
Then who's fucking the stork?!
Actually it's Rapture for the Geeks, which just happens to be what I'm currently reading. Good call.
Orbit + nuke = assurance.
When you attempt to hold back science, technology, and knowledge, it will go underground. SOMEONE will work on it, then the only people who will advance it will be the ones who don't give a good damn about your (or anyone's) ethics. I would rather it be Us than Them.
And this is exactly why you should never, ever, ever allow the government to tell you you can't own a gun. It's just freaking incredibly amazing how anti-gun activist either can't understand this or don't think that it's important.