Perhaps it's just me, but I've always been annoyed at the rule that in a sentence ending with a quote, the period should fall inside the quotation marks. I see it as a nesting problem: the part being quoted is opened by a quotation mark, hence, it should be closed by a quotation mark while the period is ending the container sentence. To my mind, this makes the punctuation much more clear, where when I see an ending quotation mark immediately followed by more words, my mind first thinks "same sentence" here rather than two seperate sentences. Sentences are closed with a period. Quotations are closed with quotation marks. Period should go outside quotation marks.
I know, I know, it's wrong, but the "correct" way just doesn't make sense to my mind.
If I had to listen to REM 200-300 times in a row, I'd most likely experience the same ill-effects. Or you'd be looking around for some poison yourself.
There's no guarantee, but is there any reason to imagine why not, other than there are things that we currently don't know? If we assume we live in a materialistic world and that this is all there is, why would it be beyond our power to be able to figure anything out? On the other hand, if there is a supernatural aspect to this universe, then how can we trust ANY science if things can change at the whim of the supernatural, and how do you even define supernatural if it exists within an otherwise material world?
Yes, I was being pretty generalized in my characterization of religion, but in general, it's a system of beliefs in a supernatural explaination of the world, usually in the form of a divine being in whatever form that creator takes, be it a single entity or multiple entities. Calling science a religion occurs only because most fundamentalists or anyone else who feels their beliefs being attacked want to try to see it in those terms to bring it down to their level so that they can say it's just another way of looking at things or another set of beliefs. I don't believe that there's any argument to be made about whether science, naturalism, or atheism are religions. How is lack of belief in a supreme being a religion? Like "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. Can I start a church of science, naturalism, or atheism to claim tax exempt status?
I'm not sure how evolutionary theory can be considered a religion by taking into account any of the three definitions of theology according to dictionary.com. Evolutionary theory may supply the "how", but we define our own "why". The only answers evolution supplies are in describing the natural way that we see all the biological diversity we do. It doesn't define reality; it describes it.
I'm not quite sure what the hell your last paragraph means. You may think you'll get all your religious answers, but it certainly isn't "as far as I'm concerned"; that's all you. And I'll stick to what I believe I've been taught from reading Kurzweil and de Grey, we'll probably be here for much longer than you would like to believe. At least in those beliefs, I can be proven wrong, although I doubt it. That's the nice thing about those Biblical theories: they can never be shown to be "wrong" because we can always just say we weren't "meant" to know when we don't find the answers we're looking for. And just what happens when those answers end up being "this isn't true"?
What happens when it's shown that life can be started from scratch without supernatural intervention? Will the response be "well, it wasn't started from scratch, they used previously existing DNA or microbe shells!"? Or will it be "See?? Humans created life, so life needs a creator!"? At your most basic fundamental level of what we would consider a living organism, you are just chemistry and subject to the laws of chemistry.
Religion provides a made-up "why" by assuming an anthromorphic made-up "person whose will is why". I believe the open source analogy is actually the other way around: religion is the closed-source "here's how it is and this is the answer and be a good sheeple and don't ask questions" M$ organization where science is in principle the peer-reviewed, open source, verify results for yourself.
Why presume that there are things that science not only doesn't know, but can't? Who's to say that in the future it will always be impossible for us to figure out what was before the Big Bang? As we know it now, no, we don't know what may have been before, but that's why we continue on attempting to discover and learn. We may end up discovering some as-of-yet unknown fundamental principle of reality that illuminates the very questions that we think are unanswerable. Or that quantum mechanics only appears random and probablistic because we currently lack the ability to probe where we need to be able to figure it out, but in the future we may discover how to do it. Making up an answer of "God did it and that's all we need to know so stop asking" helps exactly nothing.
Maybe if alcohol was legalized we wouldn't have all those murders and beatings in the middle of a drunken rage. And if drunk driving was legalized, we probably wouldn't have all those drunken car accidents.
As an end user, if you're using a web-based app, isn't most of the app run from the server? How would patching that affect your local machine and any compatabilities? I'm not being sarcastic here.
... says the genius posting from his faith-developed computer. You did pray for that text to appear instead of using a keyboard, right?
It's just humorous that the religious whackos attempt to brand science as a religion because that's the only context in which they can see something; there's no such thing as no religion, just religion different from ours, right? Like that religion of baseball games and driving cars someone earlier noted. Citing the first amendment is sure to get you some bonus points too, in light of all the censorship the government is doing in the churches these days.... oh wait.... And don't forget the brilliant stroke of logic there that because some parts of the Bible might happen to have a few historically accurate accounts of a few places and events then the rest of it must automatically be true too.
Please explain which aspects of evolutionary theory come from philosophy and not sciences such as geology, paleontology, genetics, physiology and anatomy please.
So you are of the impression that science by majority vote is the way to go? Since 90% of the people in the world think it, it's gotta have some merit right? Probably 90% of the people in the world have no idea how a computer works, so I guess it must be magic. Let's get a couple clues straight here that you seem to be missing right off the bat:
Abiogenesis is not evolution. Neither is cosmology. Evolution doesn't start until AFTER you have a mechanism for self-replication. Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole. Evolutionary biology is a totally seperate area of science.
Not currently having an explanation for something does not mean that a default "God did it" explanation must be inserted instead.
Freedom of speech does not mean that you have to be forced to listen to every whackjob with a view or opinion. Especially in a science class who's purpose is to teach *OMFGBBQWTF* science. (who woulda thought?!) Such a statement about the beliefs of the world has no bearing on the science anyway, so what's the point? Put it in a sociology class where it belongs.
Your religious freedoms and freedoms of speech are not in jeopardy. There are places for those views: they're called churches. Who is stopping you from going to church?
You miss the point. Science works the other way around. You make the claim, provide the proof for it. No proof, why believe the claim? On the other hand, we could spend the rest of the life of the universe actively disproving every claim that any Joe Whacko could make such as those lovely tap dancing pink unicorns that are always behind me. Oh, you can't disprove them? Let's worship them then! Maybe I should start a Church of the Tap Dancing Unicorns and get myself tax-free.:D
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I know, it's wrong, but the "correct" way just doesn't make sense to my mind.
That's beautiful. Stolen for my new sig. I'd credit you, but /. won't allow enough characters. Please don't sue me for copywrite infringement.
You are my hero.
*ducks*
Just ignore that low dull roar as the black helicopters descend towards you...
Is it just me, or does the top left of the gadget bear a passing similiarity to the Napster cat-head logo?
Computer? Hello computer? Ahhh, the keyboard. How quaint...
If I had to listen to REM 200-300 times in a row, I'd most likely experience the same ill-effects. Or you'd be looking around for some poison yourself.
still no Engrish...
Except in Korea.
There's no guarantee, but is there any reason to imagine why not, other than there are things that we currently don't know? If we assume we live in a materialistic world and that this is all there is, why would it be beyond our power to be able to figure anything out? On the other hand, if there is a supernatural aspect to this universe, then how can we trust ANY science if things can change at the whim of the supernatural, and how do you even define supernatural if it exists within an otherwise material world?
I'm not sure how evolutionary theory can be considered a religion by taking into account any of the three definitions of theology according to dictionary.com. Evolutionary theory may supply the "how", but we define our own "why". The only answers evolution supplies are in describing the natural way that we see all the biological diversity we do. It doesn't define reality; it describes it.
I'm not quite sure what the hell your last paragraph means. You may think you'll get all your religious answers, but it certainly isn't "as far as I'm concerned"; that's all you. And I'll stick to what I believe I've been taught from reading Kurzweil and de Grey, we'll probably be here for much longer than you would like to believe. At least in those beliefs, I can be proven wrong, although I doubt it. That's the nice thing about those Biblical theories: they can never be shown to be "wrong" because we can always just say we weren't "meant" to know when we don't find the answers we're looking for. And just what happens when those answers end up being "this isn't true"?
What happens when it's shown that life can be started from scratch without supernatural intervention? Will the response be "well, it wasn't started from scratch, they used previously existing DNA or microbe shells!"? Or will it be "See?? Humans created life, so life needs a creator!"? At your most basic fundamental level of what we would consider a living organism, you are just chemistry and subject to the laws of chemistry.
Why presume that there are things that science not only doesn't know, but can't? Who's to say that in the future it will always be impossible for us to figure out what was before the Big Bang? As we know it now, no, we don't know what may have been before, but that's why we continue on attempting to discover and learn. We may end up discovering some as-of-yet unknown fundamental principle of reality that illuminates the very questions that we think are unanswerable. Or that quantum mechanics only appears random and probablistic because we currently lack the ability to probe where we need to be able to figure it out, but in the future we may discover how to do it. Making up an answer of "God did it and that's all we need to know so stop asking" helps exactly nothing.
Live long and prosper.
Maybe if alcohol was legalized we wouldn't have all those murders and beatings in the middle of a drunken rage. And if drunk driving was legalized, we probably wouldn't have all those drunken car accidents.
Do also post up a transcription of your chat with Darwin.
Now we're in total agreement. What a fuzzy /. feeling. ;)
As an end user, if you're using a web-based app, isn't most of the app run from the server? How would patching that affect your local machine and any compatabilities? I'm not being sarcastic here.
Reading back I see I did misread your post, my apologies. I do still disagree with you on counting atheism as a religion though.
Right, we're just as nuts for NOT believing in the invisible sky fairy as those who do are.
It's just humorous that the religious whackos attempt to brand science as a religion because that's the only context in which they can see something; there's no such thing as no religion, just religion different from ours, right? Like that religion of baseball games and driving cars someone earlier noted. Citing the first amendment is sure to get you some bonus points too, in light of all the censorship the government is doing in the churches these days.... oh wait.... And don't forget the brilliant stroke of logic there that because some parts of the Bible might happen to have a few historically accurate accounts of a few places and events then the rest of it must automatically be true too.
Please explain which aspects of evolutionary theory come from philosophy and not sciences such as geology, paleontology, genetics, physiology and anatomy please.
You must listen to some real shit if a song is only worth a quarter to you.
Ms. Teschmacherrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!
You miss the point. Science works the other way around. You make the claim, provide the proof for it. No proof, why believe the claim? On the other hand, we could spend the rest of the life of the universe actively disproving every claim that any Joe Whacko could make such as those lovely tap dancing pink unicorns that are always behind me. Oh, you can't disprove them? Let's worship them then! Maybe I should start a Church of the Tap Dancing Unicorns and get myself tax-free. :D