He's not saying same-sex marriage should be allowed because divorce is both harmful to marriage and legal. He's saying divorce should be outlawed (according to the logic behind a common anti-SSM argument) for the same reasons same-sex marriage is not allowed. Yet, curiously, there is no widespread divorce-criminalisation movement.
Wow. When you think about it, that's exactly what you'd expect if these anti-same-sex marriage activists only nominally cared about the 'sanctity' of marriage and the real issue was, as a sibling post said, putting the fags in their place.
"Do you think the language in the Second Amendment is clear enough? You know, about the right to bear arms?"
"Of course it's clear! Every American has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall! How could that possibly be misconstrued?"
Huh-what? First, he didn't actually moderate anything — it's a joke. Second, these people didn't publish their research here, so he couldn't moderate them if he wanted to.
You might have picked up on this if you had actually read the comment like you were supposed to before replying to it.
I know plenty of people who aren't nerds (i.e. bad at maths, bad at science, can barely operate a computer and only have Firefox because I told them to get it) who, when conversation turns to video games, can say nothing but "Nintendo FTW".
Err...it's not so much that it's a Soviet Russia joke as it's that it takes the old joke and uses it in a novel way to highlight the effect globalisation and corporatism have on democracy.
Simple refutation:
What are the odds you've picked the right religion? Assuming a God who decides peoples fate after death, the probability of your religion being correct is zero.
The usual meaning of 'Creation' is "belief that, at some point within the last 10,000 years, God created the universe, the planet and all life ex nihilo, based on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis." The Creation myths of other religions are usually described as "(adjective-form of religion-name) Creationism", e.g. Islamic Creationism etc. What you describe as your belief is called "theistic evolution".
When certain aspects have either been proven wrong or shown quite improbable, most of the accepted theories of evolution change to account for it
I get the impression that you think this is a bad thing. Indeed, I have heard this many times before - "whenever new data arrives, the evilutionists just change the theory!" I cannot understand this. Evolution has consistently made predictions which have subsequently been confirmed, and it has also changed to reflect newer data. The predictive power shows that it is not merely an ad hoc theory thrown together to give scientists something to believe instead of God, and as for changing to include current understanding of phenomena: this is merely the logical position. To not alter the theory would not make sense.
No, he is correct. He (correctly) says that 'evolution' means the change of frequency in alleles over time. This is not a theory. This is data. We see the gene pool change. Generations are genetically varied. What he is saying is that while this evolution cannot be disproved (and so, it follows one should not use the phrase "disproving evolution", because it makes as much sense as "disproving the existence of hands"), the theory of evolution, holding that all organisms are descended, with modification, from one or many less complex organisms, can potentially be disproved. Thus, the correct phrase to use would be "disproving the theory of evolution".
Yes, yes it does contradict what you said. Disbelief = lack of belief in.
Consider this situation:
James: There are magical, invisible pixies flying around my head right now. They leave no evidence of their existence.
Steve: I express disbelief in that. I do not believe it. There is no reason for me to believe in these pixies.
James: WHAT IS UP WITH YOUR DOGMA! STOP GOING AROUND SAYING THAT THERE ARE NO PIXIES! THERE MIGHT BE! After all, I said that they leave no evidence of their existence.
Steve: I never made the assertion that the pixies did not exist. I just said I do not believe it. I did not say that I believe that they are not there, which would be a positive claim, and would put the burden of proof on me.
Really? I find that odd, because everybody I know, from those who like The Waterboy to those who like The Royal Tenenbaums think it absolutely rocks. What don't you like about it? Also, I must agree with my sibling post in that you have to watch Samurai Jack.
Actually, there's a Creative player (well, at least one, anyway) that scrolls down at different speeds depending where you move your thumb - closer to the ends of the arrows scrolls faster, closer to the centre scrolls slower.
You know, you don't actually have to write "TheNetAvenger" at the bottom of the post, it says it riiiiiight up the top just underneath the subject line, for everyone to see.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it cites it as an example.
He's not saying same-sex marriage should be allowed because divorce is both harmful to marriage and legal. He's saying divorce should be outlawed (according to the logic behind a common anti-SSM argument) for the same reasons same-sex marriage is not allowed. Yet, curiously, there is no widespread divorce-criminalisation movement.
Wow. When you think about it, that's exactly what you'd expect if these anti-same-sex marriage activists only nominally cared about the 'sanctity' of marriage and the real issue was, as a sibling post said, putting the fags in their place.
Funny coincidence, that.
AC wins Slashdot
Ummm...correct grammar sounds lame because it's overused?
"Do you think the language in the Second Amendment is clear enough? You know, about the right to bear arms?"
"Of course it's clear! Every American has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall! How could that possibly be misconstrued?"
As in "with your digits", digit meaning a finger or a toe.
Huh-what? First, he didn't actually moderate anything — it's a joke. Second, these people didn't publish their research here, so he couldn't moderate them if he wanted to.
You might have picked up on this if you had actually read the comment like you were supposed to before replying to it.
IANAS, but I'm sure string theory has other results, which are theoretically testable (though not necessarily with current technology).
I know plenty of people who aren't nerds (i.e. bad at maths, bad at science, can barely operate a computer and only have Firefox because I told them to get it) who, when conversation turns to video games, can say nothing but "Nintendo FTW".
Only they don't actually say "FTW".
Err...it's not so much that it's a Soviet Russia joke as it's that it takes the old joke and uses it in a novel way to highlight the effect globalisation and corporatism have on democracy.
Oh damn. Your signature rocks.
Yeah. Like he said, no chance at all.
Holy crap! I just tried it -- and it works! You rock!
Whoops. I misunderstood what point of view you were arguing for. My mistake.
Ah, doncha just love Pascal's Wager?
Simple refutation:
What are the odds you've picked the right religion? Assuming a God who decides peoples fate after death, the probability of your religion being correct is zero.
The usual meaning of 'Creation' is "belief that, at some point within the last 10,000 years, God created the universe, the planet and all life ex nihilo, based on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis." The Creation myths of other religions are usually described as "(adjective-form of religion-name) Creationism", e.g. Islamic Creationism etc. What you describe as your belief is called "theistic evolution".
When certain aspects have either been proven wrong or shown quite improbable, most of the accepted theories of evolution change to account for it
I get the impression that you think this is a bad thing. Indeed, I have heard this many times before - "whenever new data arrives, the evilutionists just change the theory!" I cannot understand this. Evolution has consistently made predictions which have subsequently been confirmed, and it has also changed to reflect newer data. The predictive power shows that it is not merely an ad hoc theory thrown together to give scientists something to believe instead of God, and as for changing to include current understanding of phenomena: this is merely the logical position. To not alter the theory would not make sense.
Not so
No, he is correct. He (correctly) says that 'evolution' means the change of frequency in alleles over time. This is not a theory. This is data. We see the gene pool change. Generations are genetically varied. What he is saying is that while this evolution cannot be disproved (and so, it follows one should not use the phrase "disproving evolution", because it makes as much sense as "disproving the existence of hands"), the theory of evolution, holding that all organisms are descended, with modification, from one or many less complex organisms, can potentially be disproved. Thus, the correct phrase to use would be "disproving the theory of evolution".
Consider this situation:
James: There are magical, invisible pixies flying around my head right now. They leave no evidence of their existence.
Steve: I express disbelief in that. I do not believe it. There is no reason for me to believe in these pixies.
James: WHAT IS UP WITH YOUR DOGMA! STOP GOING AROUND SAYING THAT THERE ARE NO PIXIES! THERE MIGHT BE! After all, I said that they leave no evidence of their existence.
Steve: I never made the assertion that the pixies did not exist. I just said I do not believe it. I did not say that I believe that they are not there, which would be a positive claim, and would put the burden of proof on me.
Note that Wiktionary defines disbelief as "
the condition of not believing".
Fraidnot
Dude. This was predicted. Finding this was a test. And more predictive = treated as more accurate. Geddit?
Really? I find that odd, because everybody I know, from those who like The Waterboy to those who like The Royal Tenenbaums think it absolutely rocks. What don't you like about it? Also, I must agree with my sibling post in that you have to watch Samurai Jack.
Actually, there's a Creative player (well, at least one, anyway) that scrolls down at different speeds depending where you move your thumb - closer to the ends of the arrows scrolls faster, closer to the centre scrolls slower.
You know, you don't actually have to write "TheNetAvenger" at the bottom of the post, it says it riiiiiight up the top just underneath the subject line, for everyone to see.