no, they're applying normal copyright protections, like only showing short passages, to all copyrighted works. If the author opts in, they display up to a few pages. If the author opts out, they completely remove it.
Agreed, on all except that life forms reliably and predictably act as if evolution was their origin. While their behavior doesn't disindicate (it's CORRECT, even if it is a double negative *eyes the circling grammar nazis*)origin via evolution, it doesn't indicate their origin was evolution either. While they act as if they are currently undergoing evolution, and probably have been since they came into existence, current observations are incapable of indicating the force responsible for abiogenesis. I'm okay with it being taught in science classes, but not as a theory by your definition. Perhaps it should instead be taught as a belief widely held by scientists.
I'm in agreement that evolution occurs. I also agree there needs to be a MUCH greater focus on the rules and methods governing evolution. Several of my classmates still think we "decided" to develop larger brains.
My primary rational issue (versus my theological issues, which are irrelevant to this discussion) with evolution is whether mutation and natural selection are sufficiently capable of creating new information to explain the diversity of life. To my knowledge, our insight into evolution to date has shown primarily loss of information (such as the four-winged fruit fly), or minor modifications to virii and bacteria that modify immune system identification, rather than increasing function. If anyone can point me toward a study showing otherwise, I'd appreciate it.
The textbooks are stating it as fact, or at least mine was two years ago.
I do NOT feel Creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in school. While I am a Creationist, that belief is not a scientific viewpoint. I want secular evolution taught in schools, both its strengths and its weaknesses. This will encourage further investigation on the part of the students, and avoid presenting a theory as fact.
Well, as a fellow Christian, I don't believe that's what God wants us to do. Why would God create a universe with the appearance of age if he didn't want us figuring out how these processes work? We can acknowledge his sovereignty and still look into the processes behind the universe. I hope these scientists don't just shrug it off as "the way things are", but instead continue studying it and expand our knowledge of how the universe works.
I'm not arguing that birds are not descended from dinosaurs (that's a debate for another time). I'm arguing that descent does not mean birds ARE dinosaurs.
Saying "species" was laziness on my part, I didn't know the correct terminology and didn't want to look it up ^_^.
The concern is that we will trigger an ongoing reaction and overwhelm the corrective systems of the planet. In that case, the Earth in 50,000 years will have as many inhabitable places as Venus. I agree there is very little chance of this occurring, but it would definitely be the most dire situation humanity has faced.
AAAAGGHHHH! Not "birds are dinosaurs" again! Birds are birds, not dinosaurs. Humans are humans, not fish. Just because a species is descended from another doesn't mean it is that original species.
Now to address your other statements. If you'll look at two of the issues you raised, glaciation and being a moderately intelligent ape with rough tools living on the plains of Africa, you will see the first was not a threat to the species. After all, we were living on the plains of Africa, where glaciers haven't been much of an issue. As for the second, being a moderately intelligent ape would place us into a reasonably safe area in regards to extinction. Even comparatively stupid apes have done well over the years.
There is concern that we could render the Earth uninhabitable for humans. I think that ranks pretty high on the scale of dire threats.
Last I heard... regular bubonic is pretty treatable. If you end up with septicemic (in the blood), or pneumonic (in the lungs), there is still a substantial fatality rate. I really have no idea what I'm talking about though, so if someone else has a better answer, listen to them instead ^_^.
What we REALLY need is a decent candidate for president. I think Bush's victory was because people didn't trust Kerry. Maybe the democratic party should actually present a decent leader next time, if they want to avoid another Bush (PLEASE, not another Bush). Like that's going to happen.... *packs bags and books flight to NZ*
Wait, wait, wait. We live in a democracy. That means we get the leadership we choose. Maybe we SHOULD be whining about it, complaining, analyzing its flaws, and making choices in leaders based on that in the future. That's the entire point of living in a democracy. It's like expecting a bridge to carry more weight because WE'RE the ones building it, and can choose to build it using titanium.
Depends on what you mean by looting.... Are these people grabbing new TVs, or are they grabbing bread? As for raping and shooting, a shoot to kill order seems appropriate.
But, for some reason, a lot of people and most/.ers (hippies:)) have a naive view that the world was a paradise before we had all this evil technology.
He's encouraging them to move to a more standard license so the software can be more widely integrated with other open source software. The fewer licenses there are, the simpler it is to use another app with your own without concern of being sued. Since their licenses serve basically the same purpose as GPL, they should switch to GPL to keep things simpler (GPL is just the first one that came to mind, I'm not saying that's the correct one for this situation).
Ho, Ender. Nope, never had any philosophy whatsoever. Just graduated from a computer-focused high school, so philosophy classes were a little hard to find. I plan on rectifying this as quickly as possible.
ID doesn't make any statements about whether the force is caused or uncaused. ID is perfectly compatible with the Sims analogy. ID's statements are reasonably straightforward - any time we see information originate it is due to an intelligence. Therefore, the information present in the universe must also have been formed by an intelligence. ID doesn't specify that it was a god, it could have just as easily been aliens. Many ID advocates are agnostic, and hold no particular views on what the intelligence was, and just believe that there was one. ID doesn't expect any impact on your life or how you live it.
... You're right! Who needs English, reading, history, or art! Lets stop those stupid Creationists from destroying our educational system! If it isn't science, I don't want it!
Yes, they haven't backed it up evidentially. I would argue this is because it cannot be backed up evidentially. It is not valid science. It is based on a logical argument - all examinable instances of information were created by intelligences - us. Life also contains information. Therefore, it is most likely an intelligence was involved in the creation of life. This is unscientific, because the assumption is unprovable. It is a logical assumption though, making it a good candidate for philosophical discussion.
ID states that information must originate from intelligence. This is falsifiable. All that must be demonstrated is an instance of information occurring without the involvement of intelligence.
In my view, it belongs in the realm of philosophy. Philosophy is for those concepts that cannot be factually evaluated, yet can be logically evaluated. It is the realm of "I think, therefore I am." For instance, atheism is a philosophical and religious viewpoint - philosophical for its statements about something nonfactual - whether or not there is a god - and religious for its statements about greater purpose - there is none. ID fails for the religious qualification - it makes no statements about greater purpose. It is philosophical because it makes an nonfactual statement - that the existence of information indicates the existence of a higher being. While atheism or ID may be true, neither can be factually evaluated. Thus, they fall under philosophy.
I would disagree that ID is a theology, I would say instead that it is a philosophy. It does not make statements about the purpose behind life, it states that there is enough complexity that an intelligence is indicated. I agree that ID should not be taught in a science class. I also feel historical evolution should not be taught in a science class. Historical statements, such as "man evolved from an apelike ancestor" are not scientific statements. They may be factual, but they are not scientific. Instead, they should be placed in a history class.
A misunderstanding of evolution is very common on both sides. The average individual who believes in evolution understands it less than the average ID advocate. Many still believe dinosaurs "decided" to grow wings.
"One simply cannot impose what one thinks (about anything) to anyone else." Since you aren't referring to what is possible when you say "cannot", as history has demonstrated one most definitely is capable of imposing what one thinks, you must mean it is morally wrong. Who are you to say that imposing my morality is morally wrong? My culture is just different from yours! Be more open-minded! Stop trying to shove your views on morality down others' throats! (sorry, couldn't resist being sarcastic)
Slashdot Mirror
no, they're applying normal copyright protections, like only showing short passages, to all copyrighted works. If the author opts in, they display up to a few pages. If the author opts out, they completely remove it.
Agreed, on all except that life forms reliably and predictably act as if evolution was their origin. While their behavior doesn't disindicate (it's CORRECT, even if it is a double negative *eyes the circling grammar nazis*)origin via evolution, it doesn't indicate their origin was evolution either. While they act as if they are currently undergoing evolution, and probably have been since they came into existence, current observations are incapable of indicating the force responsible for abiogenesis. I'm okay with it being taught in science classes, but not as a theory by your definition. Perhaps it should instead be taught as a belief widely held by scientists.
I'm in agreement that evolution occurs. I also agree there needs to be a MUCH greater focus on the rules and methods governing evolution. Several of my classmates still think we "decided" to develop larger brains.
My primary rational issue (versus my theological issues, which are irrelevant to this discussion) with evolution is whether mutation and natural selection are sufficiently capable of creating new information to explain the diversity of life. To my knowledge, our insight into evolution to date has shown primarily loss of information (such as the four-winged fruit fly), or minor modifications to virii and bacteria that modify immune system identification, rather than increasing function. If anyone can point me toward a study showing otherwise, I'd appreciate it.
The textbooks are stating it as fact, or at least mine was two years ago.
I do NOT feel Creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in school. While I am a Creationist, that belief is not a scientific viewpoint. I want secular evolution taught in schools, both its strengths and its weaknesses. This will encourage further investigation on the part of the students, and avoid presenting a theory as fact.
Well, as a fellow Christian, I don't believe that's what God wants us to do. Why would God create a universe with the appearance of age if he didn't want us figuring out how these processes work? We can acknowledge his sovereignty and still look into the processes behind the universe. I hope these scientists don't just shrug it off as "the way things are", but instead continue studying it and expand our knowledge of how the universe works.
I'm not arguing that birds are not descended from dinosaurs (that's a debate for another time). I'm arguing that descent does not mean birds ARE dinosaurs.
Saying "species" was laziness on my part, I didn't know the correct terminology and didn't want to look it up ^_^.
The concern is that we will trigger an ongoing reaction and overwhelm the corrective systems of the planet. In that case, the Earth in 50,000 years will have as many inhabitable places as Venus. I agree there is very little chance of this occurring, but it would definitely be the most dire situation humanity has faced.
AAAAGGHHHH! Not "birds are dinosaurs" again! Birds are birds, not dinosaurs. Humans are humans, not fish. Just because a species is descended from another doesn't mean it is that original species.
Now to address your other statements. If you'll look at two of the issues you raised, glaciation and being a moderately intelligent ape with rough tools living on the plains of Africa, you will see the first was not a threat to the species. After all, we were living on the plains of Africa, where glaciers haven't been much of an issue. As for the second, being a moderately intelligent ape would place us into a reasonably safe area in regards to extinction. Even comparatively stupid apes have done well over the years.
There is concern that we could render the Earth uninhabitable for humans. I think that ranks pretty high on the scale of dire threats.
Last I heard... regular bubonic is pretty treatable. If you end up with septicemic (in the blood), or pneumonic (in the lungs), there is still a substantial fatality rate. I really have no idea what I'm talking about though, so if someone else has a better answer, listen to them instead ^_^.
What we REALLY need is a decent candidate for president. I think Bush's victory was because people didn't trust Kerry. Maybe the democratic party should actually present a decent leader next time, if they want to avoid another Bush (PLEASE, not another Bush). Like that's going to happen.... *packs bags and books flight to NZ*
Wait, wait, wait. We live in a democracy. That means we get the leadership we choose. Maybe we SHOULD be whining about it, complaining, analyzing its flaws, and making choices in leaders based on that in the future. That's the entire point of living in a democracy. It's like expecting a bridge to carry more weight because WE'RE the ones building it, and can choose to build it using titanium.
Depends on what you mean by looting.... Are these people grabbing new TVs, or are they grabbing bread? As for raping and shooting, a shoot to kill order seems appropriate.
But, for some reason, a lot of people and most /.ers (hippies:)) have a naive view that the world was a paradise before we had all this evil technology.
/.ers hate technology....
Since all
Or we kill off ALL other species! Then there's nothing for diseases to jump from to infect humans!
He's encouraging them to move to a more standard license so the software can be more widely integrated with other open source software. The fewer licenses there are, the simpler it is to use another app with your own without concern of being sued. Since their licenses serve basically the same purpose as GPL, they should switch to GPL to keep things simpler (GPL is just the first one that came to mind, I'm not saying that's the correct one for this situation).
I think the SUV thing largely depends on where you live within the US. Here in Idaho, SUVs and trucks are everywhere.
erm... Your math's a bit off. 1K of memory == 1024 bytes == 8*2^10 bits.
Ho, Ender. Nope, never had any philosophy whatsoever. Just graduated from a computer-focused high school, so philosophy classes were a little hard to find. I plan on rectifying this as quickly as possible.
ID doesn't make any statements about whether the force is caused or uncaused. ID is perfectly compatible with the Sims analogy. ID's statements are reasonably straightforward - any time we see information originate it is due to an intelligence. Therefore, the information present in the universe must also have been formed by an intelligence. ID doesn't specify that it was a god, it could have just as easily been aliens. Many ID advocates are agnostic, and hold no particular views on what the intelligence was, and just believe that there was one. ID doesn't expect any impact on your life or how you live it.
... You're right! Who needs English, reading, history, or art! Lets stop those stupid Creationists from destroying our educational system! If it isn't science, I don't want it!
Yes, they haven't backed it up evidentially. I would argue this is because it cannot be backed up evidentially. It is not valid science. It is based on a logical argument - all examinable instances of information were created by intelligences - us. Life also contains information. Therefore, it is most likely an intelligence was involved in the creation of life. This is unscientific, because the assumption is unprovable. It is a logical assumption though, making it a good candidate for philosophical discussion.
ID states that information must originate from intelligence. This is falsifiable. All that must be demonstrated is an instance of information occurring without the involvement of intelligence.
Now, how is evolution falsifiable?
In my view, it belongs in the realm of philosophy. Philosophy is for those concepts that cannot be factually evaluated, yet can be logically evaluated. It is the realm of "I think, therefore I am." For instance, atheism is a philosophical and religious viewpoint - philosophical for its statements about something nonfactual - whether or not there is a god - and religious for its statements about greater purpose - there is none. ID fails for the religious qualification - it makes no statements about greater purpose. It is philosophical because it makes an nonfactual statement - that the existence of information indicates the existence of a higher being. While atheism or ID may be true, neither can be factually evaluated. Thus, they fall under philosophy.
I would disagree that ID is a theology, I would say instead that it is a philosophy. It does not make statements about the purpose behind life, it states that there is enough complexity that an intelligence is indicated. I agree that ID should not be taught in a science class. I also feel historical evolution should not be taught in a science class. Historical statements, such as "man evolved from an apelike ancestor" are not scientific statements. They may be factual, but they are not scientific. Instead, they should be placed in a history class.
A misunderstanding of evolution is very common on both sides. The average individual who believes in evolution understands it less than the average ID advocate. Many still believe dinosaurs "decided" to grow wings.
"One simply cannot impose what one thinks (about anything) to anyone else." Since you aren't referring to what is possible when you say "cannot", as history has demonstrated one most definitely is capable of imposing what one thinks, you must mean it is morally wrong. Who are you to say that imposing my morality is morally wrong? My culture is just different from yours! Be more open-minded! Stop trying to shove your views on morality down others' throats! (sorry, couldn't resist being sarcastic)