Some Scientologists might disagree with you on this one... from the Scientology website: "And if you were to ask any Scientologist they would tell you it is a practical religion, with practical answers -- tools that can be applied to achieve greater awareness and purpose in the here and now."(Emphasis added)
Re:Only going to work if it became standard
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 1
... Did you just compare cliffdiving with switching keyboard layouts?
I cannot effectively debate in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as my source was not of textbook quality. Could you name a good book for further reading on the Second Law as it relates to astrophysics?
No, the argument is not circular reasoning. Information and intelligence differ on many levels. God, being infinite, does not have a beginning. Therefore, he would not have a cause either.
Stating that information can spontaneously generate by natural means is unscientific, as information has not been witnessed doing so. The presence of information does strongly suggest an intelligent creator, not by my philosophy, but by common sense. Whenever we witness information, be it in the form of a book, website, or computer, there is an intelligent cause behind it.
All of this is based on logic, rather than scientific experimentation. This is a trait it shares with Darwinism. Darwinism largely makes statements about the past, and the gaps in the fossil record make it an invalid source on the topic. This places both arguments on origins on equal footing, and, in my opinion, means neither of them should be addressed in a science class. I believe origins would be a more appropriate topic for a history class. Evolution in its biological and experimental sense should still be addressed in science. The aspects of it that can be tested, such as diversification, development of immunity, and many others, are scientifically valid. They just fail to provide any increase in information that can validate Darwin's claims in regards to origins.
Would you be able to provide a source for this? A brief Googling showed divided opinions, so I'm hoping for a more reliable source than "some website I found".
It is believed the chicken is a domesticated version of the Red Jungle Fowl. They are capable of interbreeding with domesticated chickens, suggesting variation is well within that controllable by human breeding.
Cows do exist in the wild. Current cows are believed to be descended from aurochs, which are... basically undomesticated cows that were hunted to extinction mid-1500's.
The earliest fossil examples of monotremes are very similar to currently existing monotremes. It is believed they branched off from mainstream mammal evolution early on.
Evolution, in its simplest sense, is fact. Species do change over time. The best illustration of this is bacteria, which continue to develop immunity to new drugs. On the other hand, this is substantially different from the claims made by Darwinism. Darwinism does not solely claim that species change over time, but that life originated by natural causes, and has experienced a continuous increase in diversity and complexity via natural selection. As far as I know, there have been no scientific studies showing the requisite increase in information by natural means (if anyone reading can cite a study, please reply with a source).
What has been demonstrated correlates very well with Biblical literalism, that being a deterioration after the Fall. I am a fellow Christian, and am unclear on many issues regarding Creation. For this reason, I continue to read on the topic. Reading of evolutionist and anti-evolutionist literature has led me to accept the Biblical account of creation followed by subsequent deterioration as a condition of the Fall. I feel this is expressed by the Bible, and supported by what is known through science. Among my reasons for this belief are the easy classification of all fossils into the currently existing kingdoms, the logical arguments based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and existence of information, and my personal experiences with the Creator.
I am in agreement with your conclusions, but the cited reasons seemed insufficient ^_^.
The primary arguments I have heard supporting Intelligent Design are the presence of information, the second law of thermodynamics, and that the universe has a beginning.
The presence of information strongly suggests the existence of an intelligence to create that information. While organization is evident in naturally occurring objects, such as crystal structures, there is no known example of information occurring without an intelligence generating it.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy dissipates over time (I may have oversimplified that into inaccuracy, please correct me if I'm incorrect). Therefore, increases in concentration of energy, such as life, planets, stars, etc. should not have arisen by natural causes.
Finally, in all known instances, anything that has a beginning has a cause. currently accepted theories state that the universe originated at a specific time and location. Therefore, something caused an event at that specific time.
I am not a scientist, and am not an expert in any fields touching on these. I would be very interested in hearing your views or refutations of these points.
I don't believe any substantial portion of the Bible has been discredited. The only portion that is considered discredited by secular historians or scientists is the Creation account. This is a very small portion of the Bible. The remainder is largely unverifiable beyond placing historical locations. As far as historical locations are concerned, modern archaeology has repeatedly verified its accuracy.
Looking at changes in Christianity over time, the first that comes to mind is the Protestant Reformation. The church went through many major changes in doctrine.
In regards to your final comment, that Christian apologetics are weak, I must admit we cannot provide concrete evidence for special creation. On the other hand, concrete evidence is not our goal. Our goal is to show that it is not unreasonable to believe the Bible accurately reflects history, so that people will be more open to our faith as a whole.
I usually hear that God created the world and universe fully developed, as he did Adam. Therefore, there should be signs of age within the world, but there should also be signs of youth. An example of the latter (I am not an expert in the area, so don't assume this is correct) would be the continuous increase in distance between the earth and the moon. Assuming current models of gravity are correct, the earth and moon would have been in contact 1.4 billion years ago. Therefore, the earth-moon system must be younger than that. For further reading: Answers in Genesis.
Biblical literalism is the term that comes to mind. Many view the first couple chapters of Genesis as figurative truth, in that it displays important principles (God's absolute power) while not being an historical account. Many Christian apologists now maintain those chapters as historically accurate, and literal truth.
Another term would be "young earthers".
I personally have no idea. I'd love to see a good debate between the two sides though.
That's some pretty... interesting logic. In what way are birds dinosaurs? Birds have feathers, wings, and an entirely different vascular system from dinosaurs. They share some similarities in bone structure and reproductive systems, but we cannot even confirm a genetic link due to the severe lack of dinosaur DNA (as in, NO DNA). While birds may be descended from dinosaurs, this does not make birds dinosaurs, any more than humans are fish.
I give you... JP Aerospace, Airship to orbit. The basic goal is to achieve orbit using an airship and ion thrusters. Not being a scientist, I have no idea if their goals are practical. In the meantime, they're just doing some fun experiments.
From TFA: "For example, shares of Maxco Inc., a metal heat-treating company that normally trades between $3 and $4 per share, was briefly quoted at $951.47 Friday morning. It later traded at $4.10 per share."
Quote from Roger Ebert, page 5 of the article: "Lucas is obviously great at science fiction, and he could combine his indie origins with his natural inclinations in smaller-scale sci-fi films," he says. "There's a lot of mind-bending speculative fiction by Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov that has never been filmed. A movie like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is science fiction, though it was never described that way."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Some portions of the Bible address specific cultures and societies. Also, I missed the verse that said the world is flat... oh well! I don't trust the historical accuracy of the Bible, and my views on Creation are not directly based on it. I do trust the guy who told me "love your neighbor as yourself", and who has supported me throughout my life.
Creationism as a whole is a little broad to make predictions of that sort. There are many views within Creationism. My personal view would be that God created a variety of animals, and those animals have subsequently diversified and evolved from those original forms, resulting in the forms we see today.
Well, no. The idea of a missing link isn't a sham. All the developments between "an ape-like ancestor" and modern humans could not have occurred in one giant leap. There must have been forms in between for natural selection to be a valid mechanism for Evolution, and some of these forms would probably remain in the fossil record. The argument for a missing link is not unreasonable (although arguing Homo floriensis is one would be).
No, it couldn't be a "missing link". The leading guesses are that it is either an alternate branch that evolved an advanced brain separate from the more recent human lineage, or it is a branch off of Homo erectus that subsequently lost size but retained brain form. Personally, I'm a creationist. Keeps things simpler ^^.
Sorry, yes, photons. That's the downside to writing a comment in three minutes during English ^_^. I found the article I was thinking of on this topic, and would be interested in feedback about it. Solar Sailing Breaks Laws of Physics
Not exactly my area of expertise, just my area of interest.
Last I heard the entire concept behind solar sails (electrons providing momentum) had yet to be demonstrated. There is a possibility the friction from the small amount of matter in space (a few molecules per cubic meter) would be enough to nullify the acceleration from electrons. The coating could be an effective way to counteract though, as the gas release would provide considerably more force than mere electrons.
The majority of comments appear to be from adults. Figured I should provide the perspective of a high school senior. The school I attend is an abberation within the public school system, having a little under 200 students and being focused primarily on technology (our website even has a link to slashdot).
My peers and I have been taught very little about government. We have taken one government class in high school, and it was a joke. It wasn't the teacher's fault - she was trying to meet at least three sets of requirements and we had one semester. We got a brief glimpse of a few topics, and some busywork so her gradebook would have the right number of points in it. Basically, it was a wasted class. Our student government is even worse. We make no decisions beyond our prom theme. What we need is not more classes on government and history. We need fewer restrictions on the teachers, even if that means we aren't all receiving an equal education. An equally poor education is not something to be pursued.
As things stand, I learn nothing in the majority of my classes. This has been the case through middle school. There are exceptions, but most of my knowledge has been gained from independent research, usually to the detriment of my grades.
I'll wrap this up. We need massive educational system reform. Teacher salaries should be considerably higher. There should be a better review process for the continued employment of teachers, and this process should be controlled by employed adults from a variety of areas. It shouldn't be controlled by students, as we would most definitely abuse that power, and it shouldn't be controlled by school administration, as they have already demonstrated incompetence in the process. Class sizes need to be reduced (my school has pulled that one off), and open exchange of ideas should be encouraged, not just permitted when it doesn't "disrupt the learning environment".
Slashdot Mirror
Some Scientologists might disagree with you on this one... from the Scientology website: "And if you were to ask any Scientologist they would tell you it is a practical religion, with practical answers -- tools that can be applied to achieve greater awareness and purpose in the here and now."(Emphasis added)
... Did you just compare cliffdiving with switching keyboard layouts?
I cannot effectively debate in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as my source was not of textbook quality. Could you name a good book for further reading on the Second Law as it relates to astrophysics?
No, the argument is not circular reasoning. Information and intelligence differ on many levels. God, being infinite, does not have a beginning. Therefore, he would not have a cause either.
Stating that information can spontaneously generate by natural means is unscientific, as information has not been witnessed doing so. The presence of information does strongly suggest an intelligent creator, not by my philosophy, but by common sense. Whenever we witness information, be it in the form of a book, website, or computer, there is an intelligent cause behind it.
All of this is based on logic, rather than scientific experimentation. This is a trait it shares with Darwinism. Darwinism largely makes statements about the past, and the gaps in the fossil record make it an invalid source on the topic. This places both arguments on origins on equal footing, and, in my opinion, means neither of them should be addressed in a science class. I believe origins would be a more appropriate topic for a history class. Evolution in its biological and experimental sense should still be addressed in science. The aspects of it that can be tested, such as diversification, development of immunity, and many others, are scientifically valid. They just fail to provide any increase in information that can validate Darwin's claims in regards to origins.
Would you be able to provide a source for this? A brief Googling showed divided opinions, so I'm hoping for a more reliable source than "some website I found".
It is believed the chicken is a domesticated version of the Red Jungle Fowl. They are capable of interbreeding with domesticated chickens, suggesting variation is well within that controllable by human breeding.
Cows do exist in the wild. Current cows are believed to be descended from aurochs, which are... basically undomesticated cows that were hunted to extinction mid-1500's.
The earliest fossil examples of monotremes are very similar to currently existing monotremes. It is believed they branched off from mainstream mammal evolution early on.
Evolution, in its simplest sense, is fact. Species do change over time. The best illustration of this is bacteria, which continue to develop immunity to new drugs. On the other hand, this is substantially different from the claims made by Darwinism. Darwinism does not solely claim that species change over time, but that life originated by natural causes, and has experienced a continuous increase in diversity and complexity via natural selection. As far as I know, there have been no scientific studies showing the requisite increase in information by natural means (if anyone reading can cite a study, please reply with a source).
What has been demonstrated correlates very well with Biblical literalism, that being a deterioration after the Fall. I am a fellow Christian, and am unclear on many issues regarding Creation. For this reason, I continue to read on the topic. Reading of evolutionist and anti-evolutionist literature has led me to accept the Biblical account of creation followed by subsequent deterioration as a condition of the Fall. I feel this is expressed by the Bible, and supported by what is known through science. Among my reasons for this belief are the easy classification of all fossils into the currently existing kingdoms, the logical arguments based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and existence of information, and my personal experiences with the Creator.
I am in agreement with your conclusions, but the cited reasons seemed insufficient ^_^.
The primary arguments I have heard supporting Intelligent Design are the presence of information, the second law of thermodynamics, and that the universe has a beginning.
The presence of information strongly suggests the existence of an intelligence to create that information. While organization is evident in naturally occurring objects, such as crystal structures, there is no known example of information occurring without an intelligence generating it.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy dissipates over time (I may have oversimplified that into inaccuracy, please correct me if I'm incorrect). Therefore, increases in concentration of energy, such as life, planets, stars, etc. should not have arisen by natural causes.
Finally, in all known instances, anything that has a beginning has a cause. currently accepted theories state that the universe originated at a specific time and location. Therefore, something caused an event at that specific time.
I am not a scientist, and am not an expert in any fields touching on these. I would be very interested in hearing your views or refutations of these points.
I don't believe any substantial portion of the Bible has been discredited. The only portion that is considered discredited by secular historians or scientists is the Creation account. This is a very small portion of the Bible. The remainder is largely unverifiable beyond placing historical locations. As far as historical locations are concerned, modern archaeology has repeatedly verified its accuracy.
Looking at changes in Christianity over time, the first that comes to mind is the Protestant Reformation. The church went through many major changes in doctrine.
In regards to your final comment, that Christian apologetics are weak, I must admit we cannot provide concrete evidence for special creation. On the other hand, concrete evidence is not our goal. Our goal is to show that it is not unreasonable to believe the Bible accurately reflects history, so that people will be more open to our faith as a whole.
I usually hear that God created the world and universe fully developed, as he did Adam. Therefore, there should be signs of age within the world, but there should also be signs of youth. An example of the latter (I am not an expert in the area, so don't assume this is correct) would be the continuous increase in distance between the earth and the moon. Assuming current models of gravity are correct, the earth and moon would have been in contact 1.4 billion years ago. Therefore, the earth-moon system must be younger than that. For further reading: Answers in Genesis.
Biblical literalism is the term that comes to mind. Many view the first couple chapters of Genesis as figurative truth, in that it displays important principles (God's absolute power) while not being an historical account. Many Christian apologists now maintain those chapters as historically accurate, and literal truth. Another term would be "young earthers". I personally have no idea. I'd love to see a good debate between the two sides though.
That's some pretty... interesting logic. In what way are birds dinosaurs? Birds have feathers, wings, and an entirely different vascular system from dinosaurs. They share some similarities in bone structure and reproductive systems, but we cannot even confirm a genetic link due to the severe lack of dinosaur DNA (as in, NO DNA). While birds may be descended from dinosaurs, this does not make birds dinosaurs, any more than humans are fish.
I give you... JP Aerospace, Airship to orbit. The basic goal is to achieve orbit using an airship and ion thrusters. Not being a scientist, I have no idea if their goals are practical. In the meantime, they're just doing some fun experiments.
From TFA: "For example, shares of Maxco Inc., a metal heat-treating company that normally trades between $3 and $4 per share, was briefly quoted at $951.47 Friday morning. It later traded at $4.10 per share."
Typo: bundled (or so I'm guessing).
Quote from Roger Ebert, page 5 of the article: "Lucas is obviously great at science fiction, and he could combine his indie origins with his natural inclinations in smaller-scale sci-fi films," he says. "There's a lot of mind-bending speculative fiction by Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov that has never been filmed. A movie like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is science fiction, though it was never described that way." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Some portions of the Bible address specific cultures and societies. Also, I missed the verse that said the world is flat... oh well! I don't trust the historical accuracy of the Bible, and my views on Creation are not directly based on it. I do trust the guy who told me "love your neighbor as yourself", and who has supported me throughout my life.
Creationism as a whole is a little broad to make predictions of that sort. There are many views within Creationism. My personal view would be that God created a variety of animals, and those animals have subsequently diversified and evolved from those original forms, resulting in the forms we see today.
Well, no. The idea of a missing link isn't a sham. All the developments between "an ape-like ancestor" and modern humans could not have occurred in one giant leap. There must have been forms in between for natural selection to be a valid mechanism for Evolution, and some of these forms would probably remain in the fossil record. The argument for a missing link is not unreasonable (although arguing Homo floriensis is one would be).
No, it couldn't be a "missing link". The leading guesses are that it is either an alternate branch that evolved an advanced brain separate from the more recent human lineage, or it is a branch off of Homo erectus that subsequently lost size but retained brain form. Personally, I'm a creationist. Keeps things simpler ^^.
Sorry, yes, photons. That's the downside to writing a comment in three minutes during English ^_^. I found the article I was thinking of on this topic, and would be interested in feedback about it. Solar Sailing Breaks Laws of Physics Not exactly my area of expertise, just my area of interest.
Last I heard the entire concept behind solar sails (electrons providing momentum) had yet to be demonstrated. There is a possibility the friction from the small amount of matter in space (a few molecules per cubic meter) would be enough to nullify the acceleration from electrons. The coating could be an effective way to counteract though, as the gas release would provide considerably more force than mere electrons.
The majority of comments appear to be from adults. Figured I should provide the perspective of a high school senior. The school I attend is an abberation within the public school system, having a little under 200 students and being focused primarily on technology (our website even has a link to slashdot).
My peers and I have been taught very little about government. We have taken one government class in high school, and it was a joke. It wasn't the teacher's fault - she was trying to meet at least three sets of requirements and we had one semester. We got a brief glimpse of a few topics, and some busywork so her gradebook would have the right number of points in it. Basically, it was a wasted class. Our student government is even worse. We make no decisions beyond our prom theme. What we need is not more classes on government and history. We need fewer restrictions on the teachers, even if that means we aren't all receiving an equal education. An equally poor education is not something to be pursued.
As things stand, I learn nothing in the majority of my classes. This has been the case through middle school. There are exceptions, but most of my knowledge has been gained from independent research, usually to the detriment of my grades.
I'll wrap this up. We need massive educational system reform. Teacher salaries should be considerably higher. There should be a better review process for the continued employment of teachers, and this process should be controlled by employed adults from a variety of areas. It shouldn't be controlled by students, as we would most definitely abuse that power, and it shouldn't be controlled by school administration, as they have already demonstrated incompetence in the process. Class sizes need to be reduced (my school has pulled that one off), and open exchange of ideas should be encouraged, not just permitted when it doesn't "disrupt the learning environment".