He is not against the concept of an intelligent designer, he is against the concept of teaching Astrology and the theory of Santa Claus in science class.
As a Christian, I find the backlash against ID vaguely amusing. What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
I disagree with you entirely. Macro-evolution is, as you point out, a theroy, but it is a testable and falsifiable theory, and as such it conforms to the standard for a scientifi theory. ID on the other hand is neither testable nor falsifiable, and therefore a lovely theory, but not a scientific theory. Whether ID should be taught in schools or not is not the discussion point, but whether ID should be taught along side scientific theories in science class.
By all means, Kansas, teach ID as much as you wish. In some social-study class or other where it can be taught along side of Astrology, Divination, tea-leaf reading and the theory of the Abominable Snowman. Just not in science class.
Suppose that He did appear for you. Would like that or would you prefer that things stay the way they are right now?
I have no preference one way or the other. I deal with reality as it is, not as I wish it was. If any divine entity shows up at my door I'll ask him in for a beer.
If He did show up, what do you think He might say to you?
He'd say: "Terje, you dumb moron, you were wrong" and I would answer: "Dude, if everything that book says about you is true, get the heck out of my house you evil bastard."
The problem is that no one has done an experiment to verifiy or refute the existence of God... What would you like better, if science irrefutebly proved the existence of God or if science without a shadow of doubt DISproved His existence?
Well, science can not prove, irrefutably or otherwise, the non-existence of God. It can however easily prove his existance. Grab him by the short and curlies and put him in front of me.
Several attempts have been made to prove the existance of God however, and they have all failed. The remarkable thing is that, despite no evidence, or even trace of God anywhere, people still believe he exists. I can not logically understand why.
How is it more reasonable to believe that God exists compared to believing that the reason I only have one of each sock (only the left ones survice it seems) is because in my bathroom there are microscopic green men who eat right-foot socks? There is at least some circumstantial evidence of right-sock-eating green men (I only have the left ones), there is no evidence whatsoever of God.
God is the Omnipotent creator of the universe. When he created it, as today, he knows everything about the effects of his actions. In other words, he created the world knowing full and well that there would be gay people in it. Then he banned gays from falling in love. If the poor people fall in love and act on it, they will suffer eternal torture. That doesn't make Christians dumb, it makes God the most evil entity concieved in the entire multiverse. In fact, there is nothing particularly nasty in Christian litterature that the Satan figure has done, but God commits unspeakibly evil acts on "every other page"... and still they worship him.
The convenient explanation, which is completely nonsensical is that God gave man the power of "free will". The problem with that is that at the same time God is omnipotent an have the capability to find out anything at any time. In other words, God can, if he wishes, find out whether I will eat Corn Flakes or Oatmeal for breakfast Monday morning. He can find this out today if he so wishes. Assume God finds that I will eat Corn Flakes, how will I be able to assert my free will and eat Oatmeal?
Gays are not using their "free will" to fall in love, that's just what they do, and the "benevolent" God intents to torture them for eternity because of this. I can not even imagine, and my imagination is quite good, how anything can be more evil than that.
use the part of the bible that says homosexuality is bad, ignore the part that says wearing two different types of cloth is bad
Christian gay-bashers easily describe this away even though Jesus explisitly said that the old jewish laws still apply, which means capital punishment for anyone working on a Saturday. This is not the problem however...
God is the Omnipotent creator of the universe. When he created it, as today, he knows everything about the effects of his actions. In other words, he created the world knowing full and well that there would be gay people in it. Then he banned gays from falling in love. If the poor people fall in love and act on it, they will suffer eternal torture. That doesn't make Christians dumb, it makes God the most evil entity concieved in the entire multiverse. In fact, there is nothing in Christian litterature that any particularly nasty things the Satan figure has done, but God commits unspeakibly evil acts on "every other page"... and still they worship him.
The convenient explanation, which is completely nonsensical is that God gave man the power of "free will". The problem with that is that at the same time God is omnipotent an have the capability to find out anything at any time. In other words, God can, if he wishes, find out whether I will eat Corn Flakes or Oatmeal for breakfast Monday morning. He can find this out today if he so wishes. Assume God finds that I will eat Corn Flakes, how will I be able to assert my free will and eat Oatmeal?
Gays are not using their "free will" to fall in love, that's just what they do, and the "benevolent" God intents to torture them for eternity because of this. I can not even imagine, and my imagination is quite good, how anything can be more evil than that.
Your assertion that a belief in God can be equated to lack of intelligence is bogus to say the least
That belief in God == lower intelligence does not follow, we do however know that there is a covariation between intelligence and the belief in supernatural beings and, specifically God. The more intelligent you are, the higher the likelyhood of you being an atheist, that is fact. Why it is so is a subject of interesting debate.
Morality is not fantasy. You cannot claim that my belief of an afterlife is fantasy, or you exceed the boundaries of science and you are just as guilty as the ID proponents.
Firstly, thanks for a well-written opinion from the "other side". Your views on your beliefs are sound and well thought out. Until the above. Your belief in an after life is entirely fantasy, which doesn't make it wrong, but still fantasy. As Merriam Webster puts it - Fantasy: a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived.
There is no reason to believe there is an after life, so the belief in it is something constructed entirely in the mind. Fantasy.
It took the weight of 50 years of evidence to finally crush the "accepted" infinite speed light theory and it will likely take some time to destroy the theory of evolution also.
The interesting thing is that 2500 years of no evidence whatsoever, and no indications of any kind that there are such things as divine entities has had no impact at all on the theory of God. That is just plain absurd, how much lack of evidence to these people need to give up their absurd, and quite illogical theories?
...thus didn't need to prove any belief structure which adopted the negative stance by default... I can't help but see "atheism" as "just another belief structure" that is equally proven correct as the other "faith based" belief systems.
Frequently theists will claim that atheism is "just another belief system" or similar. It is often hard to explain to them that this is simply not the case, but I will try in simple terms.
Atheism is not "a belief that God does not exist". Atheism is the absence of "a belief that God exists". Do you understand the difference? I don't walk around on this planet convinced there is no God, I just do not posess a belief that there is one. I also do not believe that there are blue swans with yellow spots, a Santa Claus, or microscopic green men living under my bed. The lack of those beliefs could hardly be considered a "belief system".
It doesn't appear to be provably logical to believe in "atheism" anymore than some "theism"
If you run into a man in the park one day that says that there are invisible men following him, and they are going to kill him by stuffing him full of small white lab rats in 10 minutes, you would probably consider him insane or at least not particularly logical about his world view. If something that there is no compelling evidence for, or in fact no reason whatsoever to believe, is a significant part of your world view, insane is often the diagnosis. Lacking in logic is definitely the case. Why would it be different when we are talking about the belief in a devine power?
The God common in the western world today is a construct created by a small group of ignorant and superstitious nomades some 2500 years or so ago. The God they created was modeled on Gods they had heard about in Egypt and from other sources. In fact, the God they created shared a significant amount of properties with an old Egyptian God. This belief system was modified later into what we call Christianity. In Christianity the "son of God - Jesus" walked the earth for a while. The stories told about Jesus and the properties given to him were taken from older myths and legends. A lot of Jesus' properties were taken from old Greek legends to make the story easier to sell in Greece, the primary market for the Christianity sales people.
Believing in the writings of ancient, ignorant nomads and ancient greek legends for which there is no compelling evidence or even plausible curcumstantial evidence, is not particularly logical.
Exactly what determines whether a theory is scientific or not?
Essentially the following: The theory must be testable and it must be falsifiable. ID satisfies none. Evolution satisfies both.
Modern physics is now considering a theory... an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield
Come on... why is it that the religious guys never check what happened to their favorite "new scientific theory"? Setterfields work has been thoroughly discredited since it was done. He essentially doctored (by selecting all the data that matched and disregarding data that didn't match) the observations to match his theory.
I wonder how long it will take and how many more measurements, before the accepted theory of the billions and billions of years will finally fall before the onslaught of evidence against it.
Science and creation has ben taught as if evolution is the only way life as we know it could have been created.
No, science doesn't teach that evolution is the only way life could have been created. Science teaches that evolution is the only scientific theory that describes the world as we see it. That is fact. There are no other scientific theories. As long as that is the case, science should only deal with that one theory. If someone can come up with another scientific theory that explains life, then science should teach that too. Nobody has, not in the 2000 year available to do so.
I know of a girl who came home and told here parents that the bible was wrong and god didn't create the earth and humans after they started studying this in science. She got this idea from somewere, is it just coincidence it happend to enter her brain at the same time when they started lessons on evolution?
It sounds like the girl has a brain. You see, that is the thing with a scientific education. Once you learn the facts of life you are less likely to believe in woodoo, astrology and other silly superstitions. If the girl found that the theory of evolution invalidates the superstitions her parents have, that shows she has critical faculties. That is not a bad thing.
I don't see anythign wrong with teachinng evolution as a theory that hasn't been proven and not as fact.
Evolution is observable fact, why should science teach it as a non-proven theory? That evolution is the way humans were created is not proven fact, but currently the only plausible theory.
There are posts that say because something "isn't science" it shouldn't ever be taught
No there isn't. If something isn't science it shouldn't be taught in science class. What the creation science and Intelligent Design advocates want is that ID should be taught in science class which it shouldn't, since it isn't science. It should of course be taught in school in the appropriate class, along side of Astrology and woodoo.
note the problem isn't being the pledge itself but being compeled to say it in an institution they are compelled by law to attened.
No, this is not the problem they have with the pledge. Early in the 1950's the pledge was changed from it's original text to include the following words "under God". Originally the pledge did not include that phrase. The problem is that the Constitution determines a separation of church and state, requiring the reading of the pledge in public schools is therefore un-constitutional since the phrase "under God" assumes that there is a God.
The we learned that some belive this to be how life began. It is a little different then whats being teached now.
It depends on what you mean. The theory of evolution is, as the name states, at theory, not only that, it is a scientific theory. Such theories have a few properties that mark them as scientific, you can look them up if you wish. Think "testability" and "possible to falsify" for example. Now, it turns out that this theory has played out on the micro level, and is today observable fact. Now, the theory part then extrapolates that these processes are also working on the macro leve. That is however just a theory, but it is a scientifi theory and as such belongs in science class.
Contrast the above to the theory of Intelligent Design. This theory is neither testable nor falsifyable, so as a theory it is fun enough to play with, but it is not a scientific theory. The theory of Intelligent Design therefore belongs in whatever class they teach Christianity, Islam and Astrology.
Why does questioning evolution result in answers like "everyone knows evolution is a fact, that's a stupid question."
Again, it depends on what you mean, and probably who you talk to. Evolution as such is an observable fact, so questioning that is like questioning the existance of the sun. Questioning that evolution has created man should normally not be met with a response as the one you quote above, but with a good explanation of why it is a logical extrapolation to make. The interesting thing about evolution as an explanation for the existence of man is also that it is the only scientific theory that explains it. As such we have to take it quite seriously.
There is a problem with science, and I think it begins with what science has become - "believe what we tell you is true", instead of "believe what you can prove."
I think a significant amount of the population feels it is like that, and that is a problem scientists should take seriously. Science is not like that though.
Molecular biology now demonstrates MANY systems containing irreducible complexity.
This is actually something of a myth, and I think Dawkins for example, has shown how the eye, a very complex piece of machinery, can evolve in relatively few steps.
Anyone who thinks that evolution is a "proven fact" needs to check the definition of "proven" and "fact"
Micro evolution is observed, and must be considered fact.
Well, the problem with the comment above is that means that at least half the people showing up at the White House every day for work are not "civilized, reasonable people". I think that is a bit of a problem.
How is a hypothetical animal soul more "pure" than the human soul? Are male Dolphins just innocent "children" with "pure souls" when they gang rape female dolphins and kill them afterwards just for fun? Just as an example.
hose opposing evolution are mostly responding to strident atheists who are using evolution to attempt to claim that science has disproved God
I do not think I have ever met a single atheist that say says science disproves God, not even Dawkins. What an atheist says is that we should relate to God in the same way we relate to other pretty unlikely fixtures of our lives, such Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and little green men under your bed - too small to see. In other words, there is no compelling data that suggests that there is a God, so it makes no logical sense to think there is.
Science can not prove that there is no God, science can likewise not prove that there are no blue swans with yellow spots or a Tooth Fairy. You can't prove the non-existance of something.
Those opposing evolution today are those who would like to see Intelligent Design taught along side of Evolution, which is an absurd notion. Evolution is a theory, on a macro scale it is not proven, but it is a theory, and more, it is a scientific theory. A scientific theory has some special properties, that is why it is scientific and not just a theory. Intelligent Design on the other hand is not a scientific theory, there is nothing scientific at all about that theory, and if it should be taught in schools, it should be taught along side of other religious notions such as Christianity, Islam and Astrology.
There is a market for Office on Linux otherwise Crossover Office wouldn't exist... people using Linux now that would buy Office
There is a market for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that there is a compelling market for Microsoft for these things. A small company can make lots of money with 100, 200, 1000 customers. No problem. If Microsoft adds a consumer product that picks up 1000 customers, it will be a huge loss for them. In that way there is no market whatsoever for Microsoft Office on Linux even though there is a market for Crossover Office. A customer brings cost, not only revenue. Microsoft will need a critical mass of customers before it pays, or, as I pointed out above, the real risk of losing customers to a competitive alternative. Neither is the case at this stage.
Simply I don't see the need to pay $400 for Office, especially when all I may use much is Word.
The other thing is that Microsoft doesn't much care abou this, the reason is simple, there aren't all that many like you buying Office. People either get it bundled or through their employer who's bought site licenses.
While MS would loose some of the OS market they would more than make up for it in the Office arena
Nope, they wouldn't. In order to run Office you have to have Windows. People will invest in Office (noone invests in an operating system as such), so for each person who have a requirement to run Office, MS will sell one license of Windows. There are close to zero real alternatives to Office out there, so MS can not expand it's market share there. Porting Office to Linux will therefore increase sales with "exactly" $0. Each extra Linux Office sale will mean one less Windows (or perhaps Mac) Office sale. No gain for MS. In addition, they will find that their Windows sales dwindle due to less OS license sales.
Porting Office to Linux until there is a real competitive alternative would be insane for Microsoft. Once there is a competitive alternative, they should however, so as not to lose Office sales. Oh, and no, I have tried Open Office, and it is not yet an alternative.
I am sorry, but that is quite absurd. The X in the top right corner of the window closes the current window, no matter how many tabs. Using it to close one tab is counter-intuitive, and wasting cycles on adding such a feature to the browser is silly.
Putting the X on the tab bar is, in the sam way, very intuitive for the non-retarded user. Another place to put it would be on the tab it self, but that would probably make the X very small (see some SWT apps that use this feature).
Bots should not be the biggest worry. The big worry should be the poker site itself. They make money on the rake (except in tournaments where they charge a little extra entry $5 + $.50...the $.50 they keep). You don't get a good rake if everyone gets dealt fair cards.
This has been theorized about for as long as there have been online sites. Do the sites deal hands that will push up the rake? I have been playing for a while, and I have used tracking software for the past 6 months. All the stats I have say that the sites I play deal reasonably normal hands.
The reason it seems that abnormal hands (three people with a pair for example) get dealt is that you play far more hands online than you could ever do in a B&M room. The more hands you play the more "absurd" situations you will see.
Two examples I saw recently: - SB and BB are limps and checks. The flop comes 448. SB checks, BB bets a bit, SB raises a little, BB goes all in, SB calls. SB turns over 44 for quads, BB turns over 88 for a nice boat. The turn card comes 8... - Three people in the pot, raised moderately. The flop comes 5 7 T. Some agressive betting finally puts two of the three players all in and they turn over their cards. Hands were 55, 77 and TT.
Both of the rounds above are what people call very "typical" hands for online play. Both rounds I saw in a B&M room in Cali. Perhaps the Cali poker rooms have started doing the same as online rooms:-)
Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.
Yep, that is because Science deals in realities and the bible deals in dillutional fantasies and silly superstition. When you are trapped in a world of silly superstition you will not have to change your world view as your learn, since you are not learning, you are just perpetually ignorant.
Why not live in a happy moral time, with good families, and worthwhile occupations.
When are those times? When the church rules? The more power the church has, the more ignorance you see in the world. Generally knowledge is frowned upon by the most conservative religious people, since knowledge leads to questions and doubt. In religious times questions and doubt is a bad thing, you are supposed to blindly accept "truth" as set in stone somewhere.
Truths coming out of such blind ignorance is always interesting to watch, and includes gems such as
The earth is the center of the universe
A rebellious child shall be put to death by its parents
Witches and sorceres roam the world and it is our duty to kill them
It is perfectly OK to have slaves, and slaves who try to become free must be punished
A man can sell his daughter into slavery
A farmer who plants two crops side by side must be put to death
More religion equals more ignorance and more suffering. Science, and science alone, has extended the average human life span in this country by about 30 years just in the last 100 years. Have the church run the world and the average US male will live to become about 40, leave it to scientists and the average US male will live almost until he is 80.
Please don't give me that shit about religion and religious institutions running the world better than when scientists are allowed to work it. It is thanks to scientists that most of us are alive at all.
God is a human invention that stems from fear and ignorance. Grow up. Drop God.
Americans accept the idea of the free expression of ideas at public schools.
So do I. I therefore think that we should teach ID in schools, as we should teach Islam, Christianity, Scientology and Astrology. They all belong somewhere in social sciences and religion type of subjects. ID isn't, and has never been science. The problem with the advocacy of ID is not that they want it taught in schools, the problem is that they want it taught in science class. What else should we teach in science class do you think? Santa Claus? Astrology? Scientology?
And teach creationism, ID, and other theories (including evolution) in other classes where it's appropriate.
This is where you go wrong. You are lumping a scientific theory (evolution) in with all other theories. That is the idiocy. ID and Creationism are not scientific theories. They are theories, but they are not scientific.
A scientific theory must be testable and falsifiable, that is the litmus test. Evolution matches both those criteria. ID matches neither. That is why Evolution, as a theory belongs in science class and ID does not.
Stupidity? What are you talking about? It seems utterly clear that he does not understand the difference between superstition and science. His comment about the majority deciding what is science or not is pure rubbish. Science is a relatively well-defined dicipline, and no matter what people believe, ID is not science. Postulating a theory doesn't mean you are dabbling in science. The theory must, for one, be falsifiable, which ID is not.
I fully respect peoples belief, I have beliefs of my own. I would never try to suggest that my private beliefs should be taught in schools as science though. Neither should the followers of the belief that the universe is a result of Intelligent Design.
Science is not a religion, it is in fact the total opposite. Science deals in things that can be tested and falsified. That is the definition of science. Intelligent design can not be tested and it can not be falsified, that is why it is not science.
For some reason people think that there is "belief" involved when it comes to science, and that is just a sign of how amazingly ignorant these people are. Science doesn't deal in beliefs, that is the domain of religion. Science is the exact opposite of religion.
Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.
Pardon my french, but that is pure bullshit. Majority doesn't have anything to do with what is science or not. A huge portion of the population also believes in Astrology, should that be included in science class? Of course not.
ID and Creationism are religious ideas. They have nothing to do with science. If they are to be taught in schools they should be taught where they belong, along side of Buddhism, Islam, Astrology and all the other superstition. Science class is for scientific theory, and ID, all though a theory, doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. If you do not know what a scientific theory is, and why ID and Creationism doesn't qualify, I suggest you read up on the subject. It isn't all that hard.
Slashdot Mirror
He is not against the concept of an intelligent designer, he is against the concept of teaching Astrology and the theory of Santa Claus in science class.
As a Christian, I find the backlash against ID vaguely amusing. What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
I disagree with you entirely. Macro-evolution is, as you point out, a theroy, but it is a testable and falsifiable theory, and as such it conforms to the standard for a scientifi theory. ID on the other hand is neither testable nor falsifiable, and therefore a lovely theory, but not a scientific theory. Whether ID should be taught in schools or not is not the discussion point, but whether ID should be taught along side scientific theories in science class.
By all means, Kansas, teach ID as much as you wish. In some social-study class or other where it can be taught along side of Astrology, Divination, tea-leaf reading and the theory of the Abominable Snowman. Just not in science class.
Suppose that He did appear for you. Would like that or would you prefer that things stay the way they are right now?
I have no preference one way or the other. I deal with reality as it is, not as I wish it was. If any divine entity shows up at my door I'll ask him in for a beer.
If He did show up, what do you think He might say to you?
He'd say: "Terje, you dumb moron, you were wrong" and I would answer: "Dude, if everything that book says about you is true, get the heck out of my house you evil bastard."
The problem is that no one has done an experiment to verifiy or refute the existence of God ... What would you like better, if science irrefutebly proved the existence of God or if science without a shadow of doubt DISproved His existence?
Well, science can not prove, irrefutably or otherwise, the non-existence of God. It can however easily prove his existance. Grab him by the short and curlies and put him in front of me.
Several attempts have been made to prove the existance of God however, and they have all failed. The remarkable thing is that, despite no evidence, or even trace of God anywhere, people still believe he exists. I can not logically understand why.
How is it more reasonable to believe that God exists compared to believing that the reason I only have one of each sock (only the left ones survice it seems) is because in my bathroom there are microscopic green men who eat right-foot socks? There is at least some circumstantial evidence of right-sock-eating green men (I only have the left ones), there is no evidence whatsoever of God.
God is the Omnipotent creator of the universe. When he created it, as today, he knows everything about the effects of his actions. In other words, he created the world knowing full and well that there would be gay people in it. Then he banned gays from falling in love. If the poor people fall in love and act on it, they will suffer eternal torture. That doesn't make Christians dumb, it makes God the most evil entity concieved in the entire multiverse. In fact, there is nothing particularly nasty in Christian litterature that the Satan figure has done, but God commits unspeakibly evil acts on "every other page" ... and still they worship him.
The convenient explanation, which is completely nonsensical is that God gave man the power of "free will". The problem with that is that at the same time God is omnipotent an have the capability to find out anything at any time. In other words, God can, if he wishes, find out whether I will eat Corn Flakes or Oatmeal for breakfast Monday morning. He can find this out today if he so wishes. Assume God finds that I will eat Corn Flakes, how will I be able to assert my free will and eat Oatmeal?
Gays are not using their "free will" to fall in love, that's just what they do, and the "benevolent" God intents to torture them for eternity because of this. I can not even imagine, and my imagination is quite good, how anything can be more evil than that.
use the part of the bible that says homosexuality is bad, ignore the part that says wearing two different types of cloth is bad
Christian gay-bashers easily describe this away even though Jesus explisitly said that the old jewish laws still apply, which means capital punishment for anyone working on a Saturday. This is not the problem however...
God is the Omnipotent creator of the universe. When he created it, as today, he knows everything about the effects of his actions. In other words, he created the world knowing full and well that there would be gay people in it. Then he banned gays from falling in love. If the poor people fall in love and act on it, they will suffer eternal torture. That doesn't make Christians dumb, it makes God the most evil entity concieved in the entire multiverse. In fact, there is nothing in Christian litterature that any particularly nasty things the Satan figure has done, but God commits unspeakibly evil acts on "every other page" ... and still they worship him.
The convenient explanation, which is completely nonsensical is that God gave man the power of "free will". The problem with that is that at the same time God is omnipotent an have the capability to find out anything at any time. In other words, God can, if he wishes, find out whether I will eat Corn Flakes or Oatmeal for breakfast Monday morning. He can find this out today if he so wishes. Assume God finds that I will eat Corn Flakes, how will I be able to assert my free will and eat Oatmeal?
Gays are not using their "free will" to fall in love, that's just what they do, and the "benevolent" God intents to torture them for eternity because of this. I can not even imagine, and my imagination is quite good, how anything can be more evil than that.
Your assertion that a belief in God can be equated to lack of intelligence is bogus to say the least
That belief in God == lower intelligence does not follow, we do however know that there is a covariation between intelligence and the belief in supernatural beings and, specifically God. The more intelligent you are, the higher the likelyhood of you being an atheist, that is fact. Why it is so is a subject of interesting debate.
Morality is not fantasy. You cannot claim that my belief of an afterlife is fantasy, or you exceed the boundaries of science and you are just as guilty as the ID proponents.
Firstly, thanks for a well-written opinion from the "other side". Your views on your beliefs are sound and well thought out. Until the above. Your belief in an after life is entirely fantasy, which doesn't make it wrong, but still fantasy. As Merriam Webster puts it - Fantasy: a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived.
There is no reason to believe there is an after life, so the belief in it is something constructed entirely in the mind. Fantasy.
It took the weight of 50 years of evidence to finally crush the "accepted" infinite speed light theory and it will likely take some time to destroy the theory of evolution also.
The interesting thing is that 2500 years of no evidence whatsoever, and no indications of any kind that there are such things as divine entities has had no impact at all on the theory of God. That is just plain absurd, how much lack of evidence to these people need to give up their absurd, and quite illogical theories?
Frequently theists will claim that atheism is "just another belief system" or similar. It is often hard to explain to them that this is simply not the case, but I will try in simple terms.
Atheism is not "a belief that God does not exist". Atheism is the absence of "a belief that God exists". Do you understand the difference? I don't walk around on this planet convinced there is no God, I just do not posess a belief that there is one. I also do not believe that there are blue swans with yellow spots, a Santa Claus, or microscopic green men living under my bed. The lack of those beliefs could hardly be considered a "belief system".
It doesn't appear to be provably logical to believe in "atheism" anymore than some "theism"
If you run into a man in the park one day that says that there are invisible men following him, and they are going to kill him by stuffing him full of small white lab rats in 10 minutes, you would probably consider him insane or at least not particularly logical about his world view. If something that there is no compelling evidence for, or in fact no reason whatsoever to believe, is a significant part of your world view, insane is often the diagnosis. Lacking in logic is definitely the case. Why would it be different when we are talking about the belief in a devine power?
The God common in the western world today is a construct created by a small group of ignorant and superstitious nomades some 2500 years or so ago. The God they created was modeled on Gods they had heard about in Egypt and from other sources. In fact, the God they created shared a significant amount of properties with an old Egyptian God. This belief system was modified later into what we call Christianity. In Christianity the "son of God - Jesus" walked the earth for a while. The stories told about Jesus and the properties given to him were taken from older myths and legends. A lot of Jesus' properties were taken from old Greek legends to make the story easier to sell in Greece, the primary market for the Christianity sales people.
Believing in the writings of ancient, ignorant nomads and ancient greek legends for which there is no compelling evidence or even plausible curcumstantial evidence, is not particularly logical.
Exactly what determines whether a theory is scientific or not?
Essentially the following: The theory must be testable and it must be falsifiable. ID satisfies none. Evolution satisfies both.
Modern physics is now considering a theory ... an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield
Come on... why is it that the religious guys never check what happened to their favorite "new scientific theory"? Setterfields work has been thoroughly discredited since it was done. He essentially doctored (by selecting all the data that matched and disregarding data that didn't match) the observations to match his theory.
I wonder how long it will take and how many more measurements, before the accepted theory of the billions and billions of years will finally fall before the onslaught of evidence against it.
When there is evidence against it, it will fall.
Science and creation has ben taught as if evolution is the only way life as we know it could have been created.
No, science doesn't teach that evolution is the only way life could have been created. Science teaches that evolution is the only scientific theory that describes the world as we see it. That is fact. There are no other scientific theories. As long as that is the case, science should only deal with that one theory. If someone can come up with another scientific theory that explains life, then science should teach that too. Nobody has, not in the 2000 year available to do so.
I know of a girl who came home and told here parents that the bible was wrong and god didn't create the earth and humans after they started studying this in science. She got this idea from somewere, is it just coincidence it happend to enter her brain at the same time when they started lessons on evolution?
It sounds like the girl has a brain. You see, that is the thing with a scientific education. Once you learn the facts of life you are less likely to believe in woodoo, astrology and other silly superstitions. If the girl found that the theory of evolution invalidates the superstitions her parents have, that shows she has critical faculties. That is not a bad thing.
I don't see anythign wrong with teachinng evolution as a theory that hasn't been proven and not as fact.
Evolution is observable fact, why should science teach it as a non-proven theory? That evolution is the way humans were created is not proven fact, but currently the only plausible theory.
There are posts that say because something "isn't science" it shouldn't ever be taught
No there isn't. If something isn't science it shouldn't be taught in science class. What the creation science and Intelligent Design advocates want is that ID should be taught in science class which it shouldn't, since it isn't science. It should of course be taught in school in the appropriate class, along side of Astrology and woodoo.
note the problem isn't being the pledge itself but being compeled to say it in an institution they are compelled by law to attened.
No, this is not the problem they have with the pledge. Early in the 1950's the pledge was changed from it's original text to include the following words "under God". Originally the pledge did not include that phrase. The problem is that the Constitution determines a separation of church and state, requiring the reading of the pledge in public schools is therefore un-constitutional since the phrase "under God" assumes that there is a God.
The we learned that some belive this to be how life began. It is a little different then whats being teached now.
No, it isn't.
Why is the theory of evolution taught as a fact?
It depends on what you mean. The theory of evolution is, as the name states, at theory, not only that, it is a scientific theory. Such theories have a few properties that mark them as scientific, you can look them up if you wish. Think "testability" and "possible to falsify" for example. Now, it turns out that this theory has played out on the micro level, and is today observable fact. Now, the theory part then extrapolates that these processes are also working on the macro leve. That is however just a theory, but it is a scientifi theory and as such belongs in science class.
Contrast the above to the theory of Intelligent Design. This theory is neither testable nor falsifyable, so as a theory it is fun enough to play with, but it is not a scientific theory. The theory of Intelligent Design therefore belongs in whatever class they teach Christianity, Islam and Astrology.
Why does questioning evolution result in answers like "everyone knows evolution is a fact, that's a stupid question."
Again, it depends on what you mean, and probably who you talk to. Evolution as such is an observable fact, so questioning that is like questioning the existance of the sun. Questioning that evolution has created man should normally not be met with a response as the one you quote above, but with a good explanation of why it is a logical extrapolation to make. The interesting thing about evolution as an explanation for the existence of man is also that it is the only scientific theory that explains it. As such we have to take it quite seriously.
There is a problem with science, and I think it begins with what science has become - "believe what we tell you is true", instead of "believe what you can prove."
I think a significant amount of the population feels it is like that, and that is a problem scientists should take seriously. Science is not like that though.
Molecular biology now demonstrates MANY systems containing irreducible complexity.
This is actually something of a myth, and I think Dawkins for example, has shown how the eye, a very complex piece of machinery, can evolve in relatively few steps.
Anyone who thinks that evolution is a "proven fact" needs to check the definition of "proven" and "fact"
Micro evolution is observed, and must be considered fact.
Well, the problem with the comment above is that means that at least half the people showing up at the White House every day for work are not "civilized, reasonable people". I think that is a bit of a problem.
How is a hypothetical animal soul more "pure" than the human soul? Are male Dolphins just innocent "children" with "pure souls" when they gang rape female dolphins and kill them afterwards just for fun? Just as an example.
hose opposing evolution are mostly responding to strident atheists who are using evolution to attempt to claim that science has disproved God
I do not think I have ever met a single atheist that say says science disproves God, not even Dawkins. What an atheist says is that we should relate to God in the same way we relate to other pretty unlikely fixtures of our lives, such Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and little green men under your bed - too small to see. In other words, there is no compelling data that suggests that there is a God, so it makes no logical sense to think there is.
Science can not prove that there is no God, science can likewise not prove that there are no blue swans with yellow spots or a Tooth Fairy. You can't prove the non-existance of something.
Those opposing evolution today are those who would like to see Intelligent Design taught along side of Evolution, which is an absurd notion. Evolution is a theory, on a macro scale it is not proven, but it is a theory, and more, it is a scientific theory. A scientific theory has some special properties, that is why it is scientific and not just a theory. Intelligent Design on the other hand is not a scientific theory, there is nothing scientific at all about that theory, and if it should be taught in schools, it should be taught along side of other religious notions such as Christianity, Islam and Astrology.
There is a market for Office on Linux otherwise Crossover Office wouldn't exist ... people using Linux now that would buy Office
There is a market for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that there is a compelling market for Microsoft for these things. A small company can make lots of money with 100, 200, 1000 customers. No problem. If Microsoft adds a consumer product that picks up 1000 customers, it will be a huge loss for them. In that way there is no market whatsoever for Microsoft Office on Linux even though there is a market for Crossover Office. A customer brings cost, not only revenue. Microsoft will need a critical mass of customers before it pays, or, as I pointed out above, the real risk of losing customers to a competitive alternative. Neither is the case at this stage.
Simply I don't see the need to pay $400 for Office, especially when all I may use much is Word.
The other thing is that Microsoft doesn't much care abou this, the reason is simple, there aren't all that many like you buying Office. People either get it bundled or through their employer who's bought site licenses.
While MS would loose some of the OS market they would more than make up for it in the Office arena
Nope, they wouldn't. In order to run Office you have to have Windows. People will invest in Office (noone invests in an operating system as such), so for each person who have a requirement to run Office, MS will sell one license of Windows. There are close to zero real alternatives to Office out there, so MS can not expand it's market share there. Porting Office to Linux will therefore increase sales with "exactly" $0. Each extra Linux Office sale will mean one less Windows (or perhaps Mac) Office sale. No gain for MS. In addition, they will find that their Windows sales dwindle due to less OS license sales.
Porting Office to Linux until there is a real competitive alternative would be insane for Microsoft. Once there is a competitive alternative, they should however, so as not to lose Office sales. Oh, and no, I have tried Open Office, and it is not yet an alternative.
I am sorry, but that is quite absurd. The X in the top right corner of the window closes the current window, no matter how many tabs. Using it to close one tab is counter-intuitive, and wasting cycles on adding such a feature to the browser is silly.
Putting the X on the tab bar is, in the sam way, very intuitive for the non-retarded user. Another place to put it would be on the tab it self, but that would probably make the X very small (see some SWT apps that use this feature).
Bots should not be the biggest worry. The big worry should be the poker site itself. They make money on the rake (except in tournaments where they charge a little extra entry $5 + $.50...the $.50 they keep). You don't get a good rake if everyone gets dealt fair cards.
This has been theorized about for as long as there have been online sites. Do the sites deal hands that will push up the rake? I have been playing for a while, and I have used tracking software for the past 6 months. All the stats I have say that the sites I play deal reasonably normal hands.
The reason it seems that abnormal hands (three people with a pair for example) get dealt is that you play far more hands online than you could ever do in a B&M room. The more hands you play the more "absurd" situations you will see.
Two examples I saw recently:
- SB and BB are limps and checks. The flop comes 448. SB checks, BB bets a bit, SB raises a little, BB goes all in, SB calls. SB turns over 44 for quads, BB turns over 88 for a nice boat. The turn card comes 8...
- Three people in the pot, raised moderately. The flop comes 5 7 T. Some agressive betting finally puts two of the three players all in and they turn over their cards. Hands were 55, 77 and TT.
Both of the rounds above are what people call very "typical" hands for online play. Both rounds I saw in a B&M room in Cali. Perhaps the Cali poker rooms have started doing the same as online rooms :-)
Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.
Yep, that is because Science deals in realities and the bible deals in dillutional fantasies and silly superstition. When you are trapped in a world of silly superstition you will not have to change your world view as your learn, since you are not learning, you are just perpetually ignorant.
Why not live in a happy moral time, with good families, and worthwhile occupations.
When are those times? When the church rules? The more power the church has, the more ignorance you see in the world. Generally knowledge is frowned upon by the most conservative religious people, since knowledge leads to questions and doubt. In religious times questions and doubt is a bad thing, you are supposed to blindly accept "truth" as set in stone somewhere.
Truths coming out of such blind ignorance is always interesting to watch, and includes gems such as
More religion equals more ignorance and more suffering. Science, and science alone, has extended the average human life span in this country by about 30 years just in the last 100 years. Have the church run the world and the average US male will live to become about 40, leave it to scientists and the average US male will live almost until he is 80.
Please don't give me that shit about religion and religious institutions running the world better than when scientists are allowed to work it. It is thanks to scientists that most of us are alive at all.
God is a human invention that stems from fear and ignorance. Grow up. Drop God.
Americans accept the idea of the free expression of ideas at public schools.
So do I. I therefore think that we should teach ID in schools, as we should teach Islam, Christianity, Scientology and Astrology. They all belong somewhere in social sciences and religion type of subjects. ID isn't, and has never been science. The problem with the advocacy of ID is not that they want it taught in schools, the problem is that they want it taught in science class. What else should we teach in science class do you think? Santa Claus? Astrology? Scientology?
And teach creationism, ID, and other theories (including evolution) in other classes where it's appropriate.
This is where you go wrong. You are lumping a scientific theory (evolution) in with all other theories. That is the idiocy. ID and Creationism are not scientific theories. They are theories, but they are not scientific.
A scientific theory must be testable and falsifiable, that is the litmus test. Evolution matches both those criteria. ID matches neither. That is why Evolution, as a theory belongs in science class and ID does not.
Stupidity? What are you talking about? It seems utterly clear that he does not understand the difference between superstition and science. His comment about the majority deciding what is science or not is pure rubbish. Science is a relatively well-defined dicipline, and no matter what people believe, ID is not science. Postulating a theory doesn't mean you are dabbling in science. The theory must, for one, be falsifiable, which ID is not.
I fully respect peoples belief, I have beliefs of my own. I would never try to suggest that my private beliefs should be taught in schools as science though. Neither should the followers of the belief that the universe is a result of Intelligent Design.
Science is not a religion, it is in fact the total opposite. Science deals in things that can be tested and falsified. That is the definition of science. Intelligent design can not be tested and it can not be falsified, that is why it is not science.
For some reason people think that there is "belief" involved when it comes to science, and that is just a sign of how amazingly ignorant these people are. Science doesn't deal in beliefs, that is the domain of religion. Science is the exact opposite of religion.
Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.
Pardon my french, but that is pure bullshit. Majority doesn't have anything to do with what is science or not. A huge portion of the population also believes in Astrology, should that be included in science class? Of course not.
ID and Creationism are religious ideas. They have nothing to do with science. If they are to be taught in schools they should be taught where they belong, along side of Buddhism, Islam, Astrology and all the other superstition. Science class is for scientific theory, and ID, all though a theory, doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. If you do not know what a scientific theory is, and why ID and Creationism doesn't qualify, I suggest you read up on the subject. It isn't all that hard.