If I recall, you never engaged me logically. You simply tried to put me down.
To be honest, I don't know why I bothered in the first place - I guess I thought someone might actually be as offended as I was by the automatic assumption that it's fine to insult those "ignorant" people while themselves being offended at the slightest hint of disagreement.
Again, you've proven my point without me even trying. Thanks for the help.
So... You have been unable to resist not only calling me an idiot and have even used profanity to further highlight your anger and/or frustration.
So now wee see that you have no compunctions about insulting people without actually knowing a thing about them. At the slightest provocation, you will quite happily sink to name calling, and rather than try to educate someone out of their ignorance, you will indeed assume that the target of your ire is an ignorant moron, beyond all hope of redemption. This response was not one of reason and education, it's one of anger and emotion.
If this was something you'd come to through reason and education, you wouldn't feel the need to belittle me. You'd try to educate me. Instead, you resort to foul language and name calling. That, my friend, is emotion talking, and so I think I've made my point: calling me names is acceptable because I disagree with you. Questioning your intelligence simply provoked you to further anger.
So it's emotion, not reason, that rules you. Perhaps there's some "belief" in there after all.
Think about this: not all evidence is damning, and which is why in the world of criminal justice we have courts and lawyers. Some people are swayed by the evidence, and some people interpret that data differently.
Really what you're accepting is not "evidence" but rather is an interpretation of the available data.
I can take any piece of data you can present and show how that data supports evolution, so-called "ID", 7 day creation, or even alien beings as the origin of life on this planet. It's just data. What makes it "evidence" is the interpretation of the data to fit a specific model. Never mind that there is data out there that doesn't fit the model, and never mind that there are alternate models that every piece of evidence can fit in to (and which are actually simpler and more likely, according to the laws of probability.)
The scientific community has chosen to back this particular model, and so they interpret the data to fit this model, and that's the way it is. It's got less to do with the damming weight of the evidence than the automatic and unconscious assumption that one model is true and the desire to fit the data in to that model.
Believe it or not, arguing with the status quo is good science. One of the things I learned in my science classes is the "null hypothesis." The null hypothesis is a simple concept: you devise a hypothesis that negates the theory you actually want to prove, then you test this hypothesis. If the null hypothesis holds true in even one instance, then the theory is flawed in some way. Where is the enlightened discussion on this?
If I'm to be a heretic for not wanting to be a follower, then so be it. I just refuse to bow down to the god of random chance. I've seen things in my life that can't be explained by science and logic, and as long as those things go unexplained, I have to accept that there is something outside of the explainable. If that's the case, then which is the true intellectual suicide: believing the evidence of MY eyes or throwing away what I've seen so that I can fit in with everyone else?
Again, that's not my point.
My point is that I'm just tired of seeing people bashed because they don't happen to buy in to one particular theory about the origin of mankind. Since when is prejudice wrong only because it's targeted one way but not wrong when it goes the other way?
Like I said before. I'm not here to argue evolution vs. creation. What I wanted to comment on was the incredible troll-like behavior of the poster I replied to.
I'll comment on what you're saying, not as an argument to convince you, but to illustrate the point that you don't have to lose your critical thinking faculties to believe that there's an alternative to the predominant theories:
The bacteria example is interesting, because you're dealing with two different issues: since a bacteria is a single celled organism, it's relatively simple and it reproduces by mitosis. In a perfect world, because it reproduces this way, there is no possibility for genetic variation. In fact, the resultant children are clones of the original. But since the world of organic chemistry is imperfect, there is a relatively high rate of mutation. During the process of mitosis, the cell is changed slightly. If you were to mutate, say, 99% of the alleles in the bacteria's genome, it simply dies. But there is a small group of genes that could be modified without killing the resulting specimen. If it so happens that the resulting specimen resists a particular drug, it's because the organism was already potentially capable of it - the mutation just brought out that capacity.
The problem with the theory that you can get "a billionth of the way" to being a protozoa is that there are certain quantum jumps required to get from one distinct species to another and the mechanism for doing this is quite different from developing a Penicillin-resistant bacterium. To get to another distinct species often requires adding chromosomes and lengthening the chromosomes that are already there. In the process the change has to be beneficial; the law of natural selection requires it! However, the odds are amazingly against it. Not only that, but in species that reproduce sexually, you have to have another instance of this mutation in another specimen so that we have two compatible mating partners.
This is not to argue creation vs evolution, but rather to point out that people who say evolution doesn't happen aren't complete idiots. I know that there is a rebuttal for this point, and I know what it is, so don't bother posting it. It's just kind of interesting that people so vehemently defend evolution theory just as rabidly as the ultra-religious groups attack anyone "not them". The worst part is, these people don't see what they're doing and don't see how they're just as wrong as the ultra-religous people.
Even if you're 100% right and the other guy is 100% wrong, that doesn't give you the right to demean the other person. But that's what I see going on over and over here, and that's why I spoke up.
I don't want to have an Evolution vs. Creation debate. The simple fact is that BOTH sides can simply be wrong. Either side could be right. It doesn't matter for the point I'm trying to make.
Calling people idiots and accusing them of being intellectually bankrupt because they don't agree with you IS wrong, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Especially here on./, people seem to think it's okay to belittle creationists but get their hackles up when someone calls them on their hypocrisy. The dogmatic belief in evolution has become a religion in itself, and anyone who disagrees with the status quo is automatically rejected out of hand.
The same people who say "tolerate homosexuals", "tolerate other races", and "tolerate other religions" won't themselves tolerate someone THEY disagree with. That's what I have a problem with.
Like I said before... if I had posted the exact same text as the previous poster, but with the words Evolution and Creation swapped, you'd think I was Jerry Falwell. To come in and spout that kind of hatred at someone, whether you agree with that someone or not, says more about the person doing the talking than anything else.
In fact, I did rather well in both high school and college biology.
Neither one of those are good examples of evolution per se. They are good examples of living things' ability to adapt to the environment, but evolution they're not.
Colored moths: They're simply demonstrating natural selection: both light and dark colored moths have always been around. The percentage of dark vs. white moths simply shifted.
With the bacteria: You can call that micro-evolution or adaptation, but developing resistance to certain drugs is not the same thing as spawning a new species. If a bacteria suddenly one day popped out a protozoa.. then you'd have a case.
Wow. That's about the best example of intolerance that I've ever seen. Because someone doesn't agree with a theory, they're insane.
Read that post and substitute the word "Creation" for "Evolution" and vice-versa. It reads very differently, doesn't it? It just proves my point: The problem with Evolution science is that too many people take it as religion and fail to perform the most basic scientific tests: applying and testing for the null hypothesis. Nothing out there "proves" evolution, and for an amateur like you, or any of us, to make that claim is just patently absurd.
I know the sun is in the sky because I can see it. But without a time machine, there's no way to see real evolution in action. So come back with a TARDIS, time-travelling DeLorean, or even a portable wormhole generator and THEN call me insane. Until then, perhaps it's best to remember that this is still a theory, and all name-calling does is prove who the idiot really is.
That would be a valid argument IF Linux, OS X, and BSD could all run the same applications.
Internet access is "universal". Each carrier brings you the same data, regardless of the way it gets there. So it doesn't matter which ISP you use: you get the same data.
But operating systems have been designed in such a way that they cannot use each other's programs. This means that it's impossible for you to run Windows software (reliably) on Linux. Even with WINE, you still need certain licensed Windows code to run many programs.
If you wish to do many of the things that computers are good for, you have no choice but to use Windows. Certain web sites don't even work properly on non-MS browsers. This is amazing to me, considering the fact that IE was not the first web browser. Netscape outstripeed it in the feature arena for years (Netscape implemented tables and then frames one version number before IE did).
And don't get me started about cookies and non-MS browsers. (Mac users still can't use my company's web site).
So while MS is not technically a monopoly, they are certainly a "virtual" monopoly. It is literally not possible to do everything I do on one computer if that computer does not have Windows on it. Sure, I could do music on a Mac and programming on a *nix box, but with a ratio of well over 1000:1 (at least in this town), I'd say that MS is about as mono as a monopoly can get.
Slashdot Mirror
If I recall, you never engaged me logically. You simply tried to put me down. To be honest, I don't know why I bothered in the first place - I guess I thought someone might actually be as offended as I was by the automatic assumption that it's fine to insult those "ignorant" people while themselves being offended at the slightest hint of disagreement. Again, you've proven my point without me even trying. Thanks for the help.
So... You have been unable to resist not only calling me an idiot and have even used profanity to further highlight your anger and/or frustration.
So now wee see that you have no compunctions about insulting people without actually knowing a thing about them. At the slightest provocation, you will quite happily sink to name calling, and rather than try to educate someone out of their ignorance, you will indeed assume that the target of your ire is an ignorant moron, beyond all hope of redemption. This response was not one of reason and education, it's one of anger and emotion.
If this was something you'd come to through reason and education, you wouldn't feel the need to belittle me. You'd try to educate me. Instead, you resort to foul language and name calling. That, my friend, is emotion talking, and so I think I've made my point: calling me names is acceptable because I disagree with you. Questioning your intelligence simply provoked you to further anger.
So it's emotion, not reason, that rules you. Perhaps there's some "belief" in there after all.
Thank you for playing.
I have no problem with that. Go back to your "colleagues" at McDonald's.
Wow. I struck a nerve. :)
Be careful... don't loose your temper. Don't lose it, either. :)
Think about this: not all evidence is damning, and which is why in the world of criminal justice we have courts and lawyers. Some people are swayed by the evidence, and some people interpret that data differently.
Really what you're accepting is not "evidence" but rather is an interpretation of the available data.
I can take any piece of data you can present and show how that data supports evolution, so-called "ID", 7 day creation, or even alien beings as the origin of life on this planet. It's just data. What makes it "evidence" is the interpretation of the data to fit a specific model. Never mind that there is data out there that doesn't fit the model, and never mind that there are alternate models that every piece of evidence can fit in to (and which are actually simpler and more likely, according to the laws of probability.)
The scientific community has chosen to back this particular model, and so they interpret the data to fit this model, and that's the way it is. It's got less to do with the damming weight of the evidence than the automatic and unconscious assumption that one model is true and the desire to fit the data in to that model.
Believe it or not, arguing with the status quo is good science. One of the things I learned in my science classes is the "null hypothesis." The null hypothesis is a simple concept: you devise a hypothesis that negates the theory you actually want to prove, then you test this hypothesis. If the null hypothesis holds true in even one instance, then the theory is flawed in some way. Where is the enlightened discussion on this?
If I'm to be a heretic for not wanting to be a follower, then so be it. I just refuse to bow down to the god of random chance. I've seen things in my life that can't be explained by science and logic, and as long as those things go unexplained, I have to accept that there is something outside of the explainable. If that's the case, then which is the true intellectual suicide: believing the evidence of MY eyes or throwing away what I've seen so that I can fit in with everyone else?
Again, that's not my point. My point is that I'm just tired of seeing people bashed because they don't happen to buy in to one particular theory about the origin of mankind. Since when is prejudice wrong only because it's targeted one way but not wrong when it goes the other way?
Like I said before. I'm not here to argue evolution vs. creation. What I wanted to comment on was the incredible troll-like behavior of the poster I replied to.
I'll comment on what you're saying, not as an argument to convince you, but to illustrate the point that you don't have to lose your critical thinking faculties to believe that there's an alternative to the predominant theories:
The bacteria example is interesting, because you're dealing with two different issues: since a bacteria is a single celled organism, it's relatively simple and it reproduces by mitosis. In a perfect world, because it reproduces this way, there is no possibility for genetic variation. In fact, the resultant children are clones of the original. But since the world of organic chemistry is imperfect, there is a relatively high rate of mutation. During the process of mitosis, the cell is changed slightly. If you were to mutate, say, 99% of the alleles in the bacteria's genome, it simply dies. But there is a small group of genes that could be modified without killing the resulting specimen. If it so happens that the resulting specimen resists a particular drug, it's because the organism was already potentially capable of it - the mutation just brought out that capacity.
The problem with the theory that you can get "a billionth of the way" to being a protozoa is that there are certain quantum jumps required to get from one distinct species to another and the mechanism for doing this is quite different from developing a Penicillin-resistant bacterium. To get to another distinct species often requires adding chromosomes and lengthening the chromosomes that are already there. In the process the change has to be beneficial; the law of natural selection requires it! However, the odds are amazingly against it. Not only that, but in species that reproduce sexually, you have to have another instance of this mutation in another specimen so that we have two compatible mating partners.
This is not to argue creation vs evolution, but rather to point out that people who say evolution doesn't happen aren't complete idiots. I know that there is a rebuttal for this point, and I know what it is, so don't bother posting it. It's just kind of interesting that people so vehemently defend evolution theory just as rabidly as the ultra-religious groups attack anyone "not them". The worst part is, these people don't see what they're doing and don't see how they're just as wrong as the ultra-religous people.
Even if you're 100% right and the other guy is 100% wrong, that doesn't give you the right to demean the other person. But that's what I see going on over and over here, and that's why I spoke up.
I don't want to have an Evolution vs. Creation debate. The simple fact is that BOTH sides can simply be wrong. Either side could be right. It doesn't matter for the point I'm trying to make. Calling people idiots and accusing them of being intellectually bankrupt because they don't agree with you IS wrong, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Especially here on ./, people seem to think it's okay to belittle creationists but get their hackles up when someone calls them on their hypocrisy. The dogmatic belief in evolution has become a religion in itself, and anyone who disagrees with the status quo is automatically rejected out of hand.
The same people who say "tolerate homosexuals", "tolerate other races", and "tolerate other religions" won't themselves tolerate someone THEY disagree with. That's what I have a problem with.
Like I said before... if I had posted the exact same text as the previous poster, but with the words Evolution and Creation swapped, you'd think I was Jerry Falwell. To come in and spout that kind of hatred at someone, whether you agree with that someone or not, says more about the person doing the talking than anything else.
In fact, I did rather well in both high school and college biology. Neither one of those are good examples of evolution per se. They are good examples of living things' ability to adapt to the environment, but evolution they're not. Colored moths: They're simply demonstrating natural selection: both light and dark colored moths have always been around. The percentage of dark vs. white moths simply shifted. With the bacteria: You can call that micro-evolution or adaptation, but developing resistance to certain drugs is not the same thing as spawning a new species. If a bacteria suddenly one day popped out a protozoa.. then you'd have a case.
Wow. That's about the best example of intolerance that I've ever seen. Because someone doesn't agree with a theory, they're insane.
Read that post and substitute the word "Creation" for "Evolution" and vice-versa. It reads very differently, doesn't it? It just proves my point: The problem with Evolution science is that too many people take it as religion and fail to perform the most basic scientific tests: applying and testing for the null hypothesis. Nothing out there "proves" evolution, and for an amateur like you, or any of us, to make that claim is just patently absurd.
I know the sun is in the sky because I can see it. But without a time machine, there's no way to see real evolution in action. So come back with a TARDIS, time-travelling DeLorean, or even a portable wormhole generator and THEN call me insane. Until then, perhaps it's best to remember that this is still a theory, and all name-calling does is prove who the idiot really is.
That would be a valid argument IF Linux, OS X, and BSD could all run the same applications. Internet access is "universal". Each carrier brings you the same data, regardless of the way it gets there. So it doesn't matter which ISP you use: you get the same data. But operating systems have been designed in such a way that they cannot use each other's programs. This means that it's impossible for you to run Windows software (reliably) on Linux. Even with WINE, you still need certain licensed Windows code to run many programs. If you wish to do many of the things that computers are good for, you have no choice but to use Windows. Certain web sites don't even work properly on non-MS browsers. This is amazing to me, considering the fact that IE was not the first web browser. Netscape outstripeed it in the feature arena for years (Netscape implemented tables and then frames one version number before IE did). And don't get me started about cookies and non-MS browsers. (Mac users still can't use my company's web site). So while MS is not technically a monopoly, they are certainly a "virtual" monopoly. It is literally not possible to do everything I do on one computer if that computer does not have Windows on it. Sure, I could do music on a Mac and programming on a *nix box, but with a ratio of well over 1000:1 (at least in this town), I'd say that MS is about as mono as a monopoly can get.