"that maybe control of ReiserFS will now be in the hands of someone who is not a total cock"
Maybe they'll rename it to roosterFS! As if anyone could read that guy's chickenscratch anyway. All he did was hunt and peck at the keys! A total bird-brain!
well, you sure are angry. You can enjoy a good debate without getting your drawers in knots, did you know?
As you stated, you and I are using what is essentially the same reasoning to support different beliefs. You are saying the order imposed by natural laws just exists and doesn't necessitate a creator. You quite rightly suggest that I believe that there is a designer who just exists without a designer. What is the difference? At some point, both of us are just accepting the existence of something. That's quite necessary, due to the limits of our understanding. Of course, you'll argue that your system of beliefs is perfectly OK with something existing without a designer and mine isn't. But that's really the same "boring, uninteresting cop-out" as saying there's just a creator with no origin.
I know evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. How redundant of you to point that out, considering I made essentially the same point. I'll say it again: Oftentimes what is ostensibly a creation vs evolution debate is really a creation vs abiogenesis debate. Creation vs evolution is meaningless if you don't first address the origin of life. If life came about on its own, then evolution is the logical conclusion. If life didn't come about on its own, as in, it was created, then evolution is rather illogical. Evolution doesn't depend on any one theory of genesis, but evolution DOES require some origin of life on order to even happen. But, be honest: some form of abiogenesis is definitely more evolution-friendly than belief in a creator.
My point was that as a scientific theory, a "natural" origin of life (abiogenesis) is quite shaky ground to build on, which in turn makes evolution quite illogical. Again, this debate isn't so much evolution vs creation as it is abiogenesis vs creation. It's just more convenient for you to argue the former argument, since evolution can be made to look plausible by scientists who have an atheistic bias whereas waving the abiogenesis flag puts you in the same boat as UFO wackos and scientologists.
One more thing: I can understand why scientists have an atheistic bias. Religion (not God, religion) has harmed science and discovery more than just about anything else. Religion is typically quite illogical and at odds with science. My understanding of a God, though, does not make the pure notion of a creator at odds with science. In other words, don't lump all people who believe in a God/creator in with Religion. Believing that life was created by God DOES NOT prevent one from satisfying the quest for understanding. I believe in a creator, and am all for scientific discovery. What I am against is what is essentially science philosophy, the construction of belief systems based on current scientific understanding. A belief system is essentially bias, and science needs to be unbiased. Unprovable assertions about the origin of life are science philosophy, since nobody can observe the origin of life. Until we invent a time machine and witness the origin of life, any speculation about the origin of life is just that -- speculation
As for your last paragraph, I agree. This is case-in-point. I wrote something, you didn't really understand it then proceeded to spout off a rant. Believe me, as much as you think you hold an intellectual stranglehold on this debate, I am equally frustrated at your inability to grasp the point I am trying to make. I provide logical arguments, and you ignore them and angrily reply to me attacking statements I never made.
And, as to your sig, Jesus *was* a liberal and was also uninvolved in politics. People who try to legislate their beliefs should take note of that.
If you can say that the creator can just be, then you must allow me to say that the laws of physics can just be.
Fair point, and I think that's where we differ. You see me as adding some additional layer onto the existence of physical laws...I see your viewpoint as accepting the results without seeing beyond to what established those laws. I think here is the fundamental difference.
Sure, we can verify the existence of a factory. But suppose we were to come into contact with some piece of extraterrestrial technology that is way more advanced than us. We'd never be able to verify that it was made by someone or in some factory. But would we just conclude it came into existence all by itself? Of course not. We'd assume it had a designer and a manufacturer.
As for abiogenesis, I have no problem with people trying to replicate it (even if it were to be replicated, it is replicated by *someone*, ergo, a creator). I don't think abiogenesis can be proven, but if scientists want to try, I applaud their Sisyphean task. Who knows? They might just discover something useful.
I don't think I redirected anything. I understand what you are saying about a creator needing a creator, and so on, ad nauseum. I am just pointing out that at some point, you have to accept things as just being without knowing why, be it physical laws, a singularity, a creator, or a flying spaghetti monster. I know origin of life and origin of the universe are different areas of study. But both grapple with the same essential problem, namely, you start with *something*. Where did this *something* come from? I don't see a logical flaw, I only see the horizon of human understanding which, in time, will expand one way or another. In other words, we *will* know how we got here someday.
The tone of your post doesn't bother me. I too appreciate being able to debate with someone who is willing to have an intelligent discussion. I do not expect to convince you of anything. All I want is for someone to see that not all folks who believe in creation are anti-science cave dwellers. There are logical reasons and deliberate thought behind what I believe, and I do not think my viewpoints are at odds with science. I appreciate and enjoy science and discovery. I just cannot accept the notion that all we see around us came into being by accident. Some things happen by accident. But the more we learn about life, I don't see how one can be intellectually honest and deny the existence of a creator. One has to separate the notion of a creator from the churches and their dark ages and the modern ID movement who do more harm to the notion of a creator than just about anyone else. I am not talking religious doctrine or dogma. I am just applying the same logic we apply elsewhere in life to life itself.
If you want to accept that physical laws just exist, or that all matter came from a singularity, or that life spontaneously arose from nonliving matter, fine. One may accept those as possibilities, but then I do not see how one can be so certain that there is no creator.
I'm sorry, you talk about abundant evidence, but I couldn't pick any out of your post. The only thing I see is loose implications like "order implies a designer."
Look around you. Think of the natural laws that exist. Think of life itself. I am not saying that it's so complex and I don't understand it and therefore it must be created. I am saying that we DO understand it, and the more we understand it the more we realize how complex and, pardon the expression, how well made it is.
Anyplace else you see a complex device (or any device, for that matter), you do not logically assume that it came about by accident. You assume it was made somewhere, in a factory or something. Please explain to me how this logic breaks down when we are talking about life itself.
As for your point about who designed the designer, etc...abiogenesis proponents face the same dilemma. Ok, so all matter came from a singularity, which was infinitely dense and infinitely small. Where did the singularity come from? See? It's the same problem. At some point, one must just accept that we can only see so far back. Abiogenesis proponents have to accept some original...something. In that sense, they are no different than people who believe in a god. Both claims are untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. You cannot apply the scientific method to the origin of life, be it god or anything else. A limitation of the scientific method, human limitation, or is it just the boundary of what is knowable? Don't ask me!
No grudges. You can think what you want. I don't ridicule you, all I ask is the same in return. When did science mean that you are in agreement with the majority of people? I thought science was about accepting evidence without bias, no matter where it leads. If my views are so unscientific, feel free to debunk them. Do you really think I'd argue this point on/. from a position of ignorance? I have read talkorigins.org and other sites like it. I have studied evolution. I used to believe evolution and abiogenesis, until someone asked me the same things I just asked you. I had to be honest with myself and let go of something I thought to be correct. It's easy for you to sit there and dismiss me, but frankly you haven't addressed a single point. That's ok, cause I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me unless you can produce some groundbreaking research I haven't read about. I invite you to try, and don't point me to talkorigins. The thing with sites like talkorigins.org is that they address ridiculous claims made by the ridiculous ID movement. This movement is the world's largest exporter of strawmen, and countering these does nobody any good except that it wastes time of the ID community as well as the "scientific" community.
No movie, either.
But I guess either are better than a half-eaten doughnut;)
Nice ploy. Just move the issue, then. "Oh, you see, that's a separate branch of study." Evolution, without explaining the origin of life, is like buying a half-eaten doughnut. If you believe in abiogenesis, then you necessarily believe in evolution. If you believe life was created, then evolution becomes very tenuous. You must choose one, and follow through to the natural conclusion. Evolution, as it is currently taught, *depends* on abiogenesis. Evolution is critically injured by the notion that life is a product of a creator, and that's precisely why evolutionists ridicule the idea of a god.
I have to congratulate you for cutting to the real issue. It's not creation vs evolution. It's creation vs abiogenesis.
Although I believe in creation, I am not part of any ID movement. You won't find me trying to legislate my beliefs, but in the broadest sense of the word I believe in intelligent design. I have real issues with the ID movement, they are to belief in a creator as terrorists are to Islam.
I'll answer your question as well as it can be answered. If you believe in some type of Big Bang theory, where did the singularity come from? It's really the same question. Both require one to accept the unexplainable (not unexplained; unexplainable) existence of something, be it a creator or some point that is infinitely dense and infinitely small. In other words, it's faith.
I think belief in a creator is more reasonable. Here's why: Believing a creator exists is a product of evidence (and just because the evidence is abundant and obvious to even a child doesn't mean it is not evidence!) The evidence is order. In any other context, order and design mean that there is a designer. In nature, everything adheres to natural laws. These laws are the basis of science, they are the constants that allow scientists to make inferences based on past observations. Even things that appear chaotic adhere to natural laws. People here talk as though it's simpler to ignore abundant evidence (structure, order) and believe in no creator. These people then misplace the burden of proof and come up with cute and admittedly amusing false analogies about flying spaghetti monsters and orbiting teapots and whatever else the latest Dawkins book told them to think. If you are going to assert that a creator doesn't exist, you have to go to great lengths and grasp at straws and what-ifs and maybes and over-the-course-of-billions-of-years to explain life and order. You can then convince yourself and maybe even others who desperately need to latch onto *something* that you are just so damn clever you killed God.
I have never heard of a scientific experiment where life was created from nonlife, and even then, a scientific experiment implies that there was someone there monitoring and encouraging the process. If such an experiment exists, share it. Until that experiment happens (and it won't), there is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for believing in abiogenesis (and without abiogenesis, one cannot leave a creator of some kind out of the picture, evolution or not). Heck, even the classic Miller-Urey experiment couldn't produce *life*; it only produced some amino acids. Sure, that's the first step...but one step doesn't get you far. Scientists in a laboratory replicating the optimal conditions *assumed* to have existed a very long time ago and almost succeeding but not quite is not enough to convince me that life came about on its own. Sorry. You'll have to do MUCH better than that. And I am inviting anyone reading this to do so. So come on, hit me with your evidence for abiogenesis. I'll be waiting.
No, that's not it at all. I see people make that point again and again, that believing in creation means that you can no longer make scientific discoveries and question how things work. That's a strawman argument, and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point at hand. In fact, the debate isn't so much creation vs evolution as it is creation vs abiogenesis.
Creation is not an argument from ignorance. First, a disclaimer: I am not defending the whole ID movement (because, yes they do indeed bend or fabricate science "fact" to fit their political agenda). Creation is compatible with science, if viewed as the Bible teaches stripped of what I like to call "Bible philosophy". Modern ID is neither compatible with the Bible nor with science. It's a POLITICAL movement using religion to leverage popular support. Or maybe it's a religious movement using politics to leverage popular support. Same difference, religion and politics are a bad, bad mixture.
The modern political movement that calls itself ID is flat out unscientific, and at best takes liberties with the Bible. For example, does the bible say that the earth or universe is 6000 years old? No. Does the bible say that all life came about in six literal days? Only if you are uber literal, but then if you apply the same literal stance elsewhere in the Bible, you are insane to believe a word of it anyhow. In fact, that's how critics of the Bible attack it, but taking things out of context or taking everything literally. Regardless, the ID movement does more harm to its own cause than anyone else needs to. You don't need to shoot someone who just shot himself in the foot repeatedly. Ok, disclaimer over. Back to the point at hand.
If one believes in creation, one can still question how things work and make discoveries. Believing in creation is accepting evidence at hand. How can that be said? Because: in any other context, when we see design (i.e. order, structure) we rightly infer that it was designed. Order implies a designer.
Sure, some things appear to be chaotic. But even then, physical laws still apply. And laws imply a lawmaker. Why do I have to keep repeating that?
It's not a matter of saying "ah shucks, that's really complex and we can't explain it, so we'll just use our elastic clause: God did it!" It's simply recognizing that since there is so much order in the universe, that someone must have had a hand in it. It's just like accepting that there is so much evidence for relativity that it is reasonable to conclude it's true. Believing a creator exists is a product of evidence (and just because the evidence is abundant and obvious to even a child doesn't mean it is not evidence!) People here talk as though it's simpler to ignore abundant evidence and believe in no creator and then come up with cute false analogies about flying spaghetti monsters and orbiting teapots and whatever else the latest Dawkins book says. If you are going to assert that a creator doesn't exist, you have to go to great lengths and grasp at straws and what-ifs and maybes and over-the-course-of-billions-of-years to explain life and order and convince yourself and maybe even others that you killed God. Which option sounds like mythology to you?
I have never heard of a scientific experiment where life was created from nonlife, and even then, a scientific experiment implies that there was someone there monitoring and encouraging the process. If such an experiment exists, share it. Until that experiment happens (and it won't), there is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for believing in abiogenesis (and without abiogenesis, one cannot leave a creator of some kind out of the picture, evolution or not). Heck, even the classic Miller-Urey experiment couldn't produce *life*; it only produced some amino acids. Sure, that's the first step...but one step a journey doesn't make. Scientists in a laboratory replicating the optimal conditions *assumed* to have existed a very long time ago and almost succeeding but not quite is no
hehe, I know. Funny part is that is used to be worse than it is now. I was kind of sad when I went there before posting it only to see that it sucks less than it did.
Cowboy hat and a kimono...that's actually a good analogy. IE is wearing a the cowboy hat and a kimono...one on each foot. As someone who codes everything according to web standards, I can tell you that IE is the one that doesn't adhere to standards. Coding to artificial standards (as in..."Hey, it works in IE!" is just plain dumb.
I have found from years of experience that only hacks make claims about cross browser coding taking longer and not being cost effective. It doesn't take long to code properly. It takes longer to *learn* how to code properly. But aren't we professionals here? Shouldn't we learn and do things the right way? I say yes, and not only for the admittedly academic reason of doing it right. Coding to standards reduces maintenance costs and saves bandwidth. It ensures forward compatibility, to a reasonable degree. And it makes your content semantic.
When you code to standards, and have the experience to know what won't work in IE without hacks, you can code sites that work in all standards compliant browsers + IE. That's just about every traditional browser. And if you do it a certain way, that's even text-only browsers like lynx or links.
well damn, what a waste of time! One minute of viewing that pile of crap I have no idea what Jefferson Planners or whatever they were called even does.
This is really fun, trading these sites. Here is another one: http://hvysl.org/
That's certainly good advice, but if you are going to complain about someone complaining about someone's spelling (the other most pathetic of all slashdot rejoinders, BTW), make sure you know which post was replied to.
I didn't reply to that post, in other words. The post I replied to misspelled the word genius, ironically enough.;) And I replied not because the person misspelled something, but because the person was being a jerk.
Exactly. Plus, your IP is tracked everywhere. In order for this to work, ISPs would have to maintain some centralized repository of IPs and who these IPs belong to, which would be accessible to everyone with a web site (so they could at least see what not to keep track of). Not only would this be extremely difficult to maintain, it would create a privacy nightmare. And that's just IPs. Then you'd have to prevent cookies (which you can just disable if your a paranoid whacko). Then your MAC address. And so on. Can someone say unenforceable law?
"who you know, not what you know. Even in tech." Funny you should mention that, was talking with a friend just last week who just changed jobs and is looking again (and thus has recent experience in the job market)...and he said the same thing. Depressing, because I don't have the connections.
You should link to your site in your user profile;)
"Apparently wanting to enrich ones self with new skills and knowledge is verboten in government jobs and the private sector isn't looking much better." Yeah, that sounds about right. Companies don't care about tech, they just want stuff to work, more of the same and such. Sad but true. Maybe that works for COBOL or RPG programmers, but if you do anything related to the web and you are doing what you did four years ago, then you are probably doing it wrong.
I think part of the trick is sounding like someone who likes learning and is willing to find better ways to solve problems, but not somebody who is going to lead a project down a dead end road of learning some obscure, bleeding edge technology. And you might scare some places by stating that you like to learn. That'll help you filter out the places you don't want to work, anyhow. Places that want stagnant people who do things the same way they have always done them get what they deserve -- the same old problems they have always had.
I had one guy (with whom I interviewed recently, yes I am at that stage now) tell me that with my attitude towards new tech, I should be a consultant. Been thinking seriously about that, too. There's a thought for you. Like he told me, as a consultant your job security is tied to your skills rather than being tied to some upper management pencil-neck. In theory, that sounds great.
"I understand that learning new skills is a good thing, and that moving around might keep one fresh, but what's so wrong with being comfortable?"
Not disagreeing with you, but I want to clarify one point I made. Don't confuse comfort with complacency. You can stay in one place and still grow, if conditions are right. If conditions weren't right, I would have moved on a long time ago.
Anyone who works in a tech related field and wants to stagnate, *should* be walked out the door IMHO. I have heard folks at my company say stuff like "AJAX? Why should I learn that? I have been coding web pages the same way for ten years!" Well, when dealing with tech, you cannot rest on your laurels. Being comfortable with a work environment, team, or whatever doesn't automatically mean that you can stop learning and growing. That's a sure way to kill not only your career at a large company, but also and future prospects of a new job. That stagnant, complacent attitude among tech people gets under my skin worse than anything, maybe even worse than people who eat while talking on the phone:)
You are assuming the people who make the decisions are aware of or care about your competency. Often those decisions are made far up the management chain. Those in your management chain who are aware of your competency are often powerless. I am convinced that's how corporations work by design: layers of abstraction so that nobody in particular is responsible for anything, and everything is done by the big machine.
I work at a very large company, and have for a relatively long time by today's standards. I have seen it happen time and again. People who are very good at what they do are sometimes just working on the "wrong" project. Often it's projects, not people, who get offshored or outsourced.
Yes, I know I said I have been at my job for a while, but don't be so quick to judge. Some of us have a very cozy niche where we are given a lot of creative latitude, work with a great team, and get to do a lot of self-initiated stuff. As soon as that changes, I am SO done with this place. Or maybe I am being crazy, but the summary made me feel a little defensive.
Eh, not sure who I replied to. This new layout on/. is a bit confusing. I dunno, someone seemed to say that I-IV-V is categorically lame and I had to jump on it. I might have misread, too.
Thanks a lot for posting the changes to that song. Ever go to http://sontrellis.com? It has the changes to lots of songs (mostly gifs) as well as midi sequences that you can play over. This song is there, but no chord chart. Now I can play over the midi sequence and know what I am playing over without having to figure it out.
OP doesn't know what he's talking about. The bible outrightly condemns certain things. Christians cannot accept these things as OK. Doing so dismisses the parts of the bible, and yet the bible makes the claim that it is divinely inspired. So what, was God lying about parts of it? I may not agree with you on anything else regarding religion, but I agree with you here: either be a > or don't.
The difference is that the bible doesn't tell Christians to hate anyone. The bible also doesn't teach that all bad people go to hell. The bible doesn't teach that all good people go to heaven. These are corruptions to the original teachings. Christians are in no position to judge. God does that, Christians are to 1) respect God's laws, 2) respect other people, and 3) share their beliefs. And no, sharing beliefs doesn't mean forcing or legislating one's own belief. It doesn't mean meddling in politics, or killing abortion doctors, or beating up homosexuals, or inciting political uprising, or...the list goes on. I share my belief with you, and if you are interested I tell you more. Likewise, you are also free to share your belief (or lack thereof) with me. If you aren't interested, I move on and leave you be in peace. That's how Jesus lived. He was kind and cared for people, not some ill-tempered ascetic that modern religion has painted him to be.
Of course, recent and ancient history clearly shows that nominal Christians simply aren't and haven't been for about 1800 years. The don't even believe in the very book they claim is the basis for their religion. No wonder so many of you are atheists; you're smart enough to see through the hypocrisy and think for yourselves. But please do not confuse God with the religions out there. Personally, I believe he exists and has more displeasure with religion than all of the atheists and homosexuals put together. At least atheists and homosexuals don't *claim* to represent him and then do a piss poor job of it.
I checked out that song...nice. I thought I heard some ii-V-I turnarounds in there, but I could be wrong. Do you *know* the changes for that song? What are they?
What I meant by inversions of I-IV-V are things like the venerable ii-V-I or even maybe a VIIdim-I. Same principle. All of those and many more are derivatives of the I-IV-V. Jazz finds one of its roots in the blues, and jazz brought the I-IV-V with it. Yes, I know...even a ii-V-I isn't technically a I-IV-V, but its the same concept and really serves the same purpose. It's a turnaround, it provides tension and release. It propels the music along.
I-IV-V in itself can go a long way. Listen to the blues, and hear how much those guys squeezed out of that progression. Complex changes aren't the only way to make music interesting. I understand what you meant...people play three chords and wheedle and warble over it and call it music. But that doesn't mean that the I-IV-V change is bad. It's a white canvas, it's up to you to paint it.
Oh, don't be so quick to dismiss the humble I-IV-V.
Sure, it's easy to pick up and make a song with it. Sure, pop, rock, and just about everything else is built around the I-IV-V. That doesn't dilute the power of the I-IV-V. There's a lot to be said for taking a simple canvas and working with it. It comes from the blues and evolved to jazz (in the form of ii-V-I). It's a formula, and one that you can squeeze a lot out of. I could point you to some songs that use a I-IV-V that would blow you away. You probably could too. The V-I is a natural resolution and that's really what the I-IV-V is built around. I can think of loads of songs that are really just V-I and accomplish the same effect (there's a reason the IV is called the subdominant). In fact, show me a song that *doesn't* use some inversion of a V-I turnaround at least once and I'll show you a song that goes nowhere.
The I-IV-V is like bread: it's been around forever and ain't going anywhere. It's a staple. Don't hate the recipe just because some people can't cook.
Haha, yes, the NKOTB reunion. A close source tells me that they have been carefully planning this for years. You may think that they are just doing because a decade of meth use, cross dressing, and frequent and questionable use of mayonnaise have landed them into some financial woes, but that's what they want you to think. They are lulling everyone into a false sense of complacency and then WHAM! just like that, they are going to blow you away. Just you wait, you with your sarcastic NKOTB bashing. Just... you... wait...
As a musician, I actually think it's kind of neat. I could actually have some fun with something like this.
Machines cannot replace musicians. Music is emotional. It is improv. It is creative. Machines do as they are told, and even if they have some complex AI going on, they can still only function according to the parameters they are given. And since a human has to program the machine, the machine cannot be a better musician than the person or persons who programmed it. There is a difference between playing chords to a song and making it your own. Think of all the jazz standards, for example. How many different versions are there of, for example, Misty? Countless. Or how many songs use Gershiwn's "Rhythm" changes? Check this out: http://songtrellis.com/changesPage. Lots of chord changes there. But each version of each song is unique. Music is art. It's not about who is technically "better" or who plays the changes perfectly; oftentimes it the deviations from perfection that can make a song so compelling. Until someone makes a machine with the ability to improvise in response to the lead singer or soloist, convey emotion, *enjoy* music, and discover new things through taking risks and making mistakes, musicians won't become obsolete whatever that means, as if people won't still enjoy making music even if machines *could* do it better.
It's a neat toy, and nothing more. And if crappy pop music uses machines for a backing band, who would even notice? With that form of music, the background music is like the tires on your bike, you don't care about them until they blow. The teenies who buy that crap don't care about music, they are buying into a fantasy that they can be cool and popular and all the crap the pop icon represents. I'd bet that the musicians who back the likes of the Backstreet Boys and Britney and so forth hate it anyhow, they are probably being paid well to be musically bored to death. I feel sorry for those guys. It'd be such a drag to back up a bunch of no talent rich kids. Now, that's a perfect job for machines. Automate the mundane, do the interesting stuff.
MSFT: Nick, Vista was a complete flop. We are holding you responsible. You can either leave and say that you were chasing another opportunity and save face or we'll...
(your choice)
...give you a bad review and make you work on something menial like minesweeper. ...send your car to the pound. With your dogs inside. ...paint your head green and call your aunt really nasty names. ...put milk in your toilet, and feces in your tea. ...spill orange juice in your refrigerator and hide your towels. ...make you have a serious surgery and install Vista on your life support systems. ...open a can of beans and make you drink the juice. ...make you light your grandmother's farts on fire on chili night. ...eat lots of spam and sing pirate songs. ...sail to the Bahamas and make you come right back without getting on the beach. ...plaster pictures of you getting your nostrils raped on myspace. ...send you to NYC dressed like an 17th century nobleman. ...start taunting you in languages you don't speak and show you our knees.
Slashdot Mirror
"that maybe control of ReiserFS will now be in the hands of someone who is not a total cock"
Maybe they'll rename it to roosterFS! As if anyone could read that guy's chickenscratch anyway. All he did was hunt and peck at the keys! A total bird-brain!
well, you sure are angry. You can enjoy a good debate without getting your drawers in knots, did you know?
As you stated, you and I are using what is essentially the same reasoning to support different beliefs. You are saying the order imposed by natural laws just exists and doesn't necessitate a creator. You quite rightly suggest that I believe that there is a designer who just exists without a designer. What is the difference? At some point, both of us are just accepting the existence of something. That's quite necessary, due to the limits of our understanding. Of course, you'll argue that your system of beliefs is perfectly OK with something existing without a designer and mine isn't. But that's really the same "boring, uninteresting cop-out" as saying there's just a creator with no origin.
I know evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. How redundant of you to point that out, considering I made essentially the same point. I'll say it again: Oftentimes what is ostensibly a creation vs evolution debate is really a creation vs abiogenesis debate. Creation vs evolution is meaningless if you don't first address the origin of life. If life came about on its own, then evolution is the logical conclusion. If life didn't come about on its own, as in, it was created, then evolution is rather illogical. Evolution doesn't depend on any one theory of genesis, but evolution DOES require some origin of life on order to even happen. But, be honest: some form of abiogenesis is definitely more evolution-friendly than belief in a creator.
My point was that as a scientific theory, a "natural" origin of life (abiogenesis) is quite shaky ground to build on, which in turn makes evolution quite illogical. Again, this debate isn't so much evolution vs creation as it is abiogenesis vs creation. It's just more convenient for you to argue the former argument, since evolution can be made to look plausible by scientists who have an atheistic bias whereas waving the abiogenesis flag puts you in the same boat as UFO wackos and scientologists.
One more thing: I can understand why scientists have an atheistic bias. Religion (not God, religion) has harmed science and discovery more than just about anything else. Religion is typically quite illogical and at odds with science. My understanding of a God, though, does not make the pure notion of a creator at odds with science. In other words, don't lump all people who believe in a God/creator in with Religion. Believing that life was created by God DOES NOT prevent one from satisfying the quest for understanding. I believe in a creator, and am all for scientific discovery. What I am against is what is essentially science philosophy, the construction of belief systems based on current scientific understanding. A belief system is essentially bias, and science needs to be unbiased. Unprovable assertions about the origin of life are science philosophy, since nobody can observe the origin of life. Until we invent a time machine and witness the origin of life, any speculation about the origin of life is just that -- speculation
As for your last paragraph, I agree. This is case-in-point. I wrote something, you didn't really understand it then proceeded to spout off a rant. Believe me, as much as you think you hold an intellectual stranglehold on this debate, I am equally frustrated at your inability to grasp the point I am trying to make. I provide logical arguments, and you ignore them and angrily reply to me attacking statements I never made.
And, as to your sig, Jesus *was* a liberal and was also uninvolved in politics. People who try to legislate their beliefs should take note of that.
Fair point, and I think that's where we differ. You see me as adding some additional layer onto the existence of physical laws...I see your viewpoint as accepting the results without seeing beyond to what established those laws. I think here is the fundamental difference.
Sure, we can verify the existence of a factory. But suppose we were to come into contact with some piece of extraterrestrial technology that is way more advanced than us. We'd never be able to verify that it was made by someone or in some factory. But would we just conclude it came into existence all by itself? Of course not. We'd assume it had a designer and a manufacturer.
As for abiogenesis, I have no problem with people trying to replicate it (even if it were to be replicated, it is replicated by *someone*, ergo, a creator). I don't think abiogenesis can be proven, but if scientists want to try, I applaud their Sisyphean task. Who knows? They might just discover something useful.
I don't think I redirected anything. I understand what you are saying about a creator needing a creator, and so on, ad nauseum. I am just pointing out that at some point, you have to accept things as just being without knowing why, be it physical laws, a singularity, a creator, or a flying spaghetti monster. I know origin of life and origin of the universe are different areas of study. But both grapple with the same essential problem, namely, you start with *something*. Where did this *something* come from? I don't see a logical flaw, I only see the horizon of human understanding which, in time, will expand one way or another. In other words, we *will* know how we got here someday.
The tone of your post doesn't bother me. I too appreciate being able to debate with someone who is willing to have an intelligent discussion. I do not expect to convince you of anything. All I want is for someone to see that not all folks who believe in creation are anti-science cave dwellers. There are logical reasons and deliberate thought behind what I believe, and I do not think my viewpoints are at odds with science. I appreciate and enjoy science and discovery. I just cannot accept the notion that all we see around us came into being by accident. Some things happen by accident. But the more we learn about life, I don't see how one can be intellectually honest and deny the existence of a creator. One has to separate the notion of a creator from the churches and their dark ages and the modern ID movement who do more harm to the notion of a creator than just about anyone else. I am not talking religious doctrine or dogma. I am just applying the same logic we apply elsewhere in life to life itself.
If you want to accept that physical laws just exist, or that all matter came from a singularity, or that life spontaneously arose from nonliving matter, fine. One may accept those as possibilities, but then I do not see how one can be so certain that there is no creator.
Look around you. Think of the natural laws that exist. Think of life itself. I am not saying that it's so complex and I don't understand it and therefore it must be created. I am saying that we DO understand it, and the more we understand it the more we realize how complex and, pardon the expression, how well made it is.
Anyplace else you see a complex device (or any device, for that matter), you do not logically assume that it came about by accident. You assume it was made somewhere, in a factory or something. Please explain to me how this logic breaks down when we are talking about life itself.
As for your point about who designed the designer, etc...abiogenesis proponents face the same dilemma. Ok, so all matter came from a singularity, which was infinitely dense and infinitely small. Where did the singularity come from? See? It's the same problem. At some point, one must just accept that we can only see so far back. Abiogenesis proponents have to accept some original...something. In that sense, they are no different than people who believe in a god. Both claims are untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. You cannot apply the scientific method to the origin of life, be it god or anything else. A limitation of the scientific method, human limitation, or is it just the boundary of what is knowable? Don't ask me!
No grudges. You can think what you want. I don't ridicule you, all I ask is the same in return. When did science mean that you are in agreement with the majority of people? I thought science was about accepting evidence without bias, no matter where it leads. If my views are so unscientific, feel free to debunk them. Do you really think I'd argue this point on /. from a position of ignorance? I have read talkorigins.org and other sites like it. I have studied evolution. I used to believe evolution and abiogenesis, until someone asked me the same things I just asked you. I had to be honest with myself and let go of something I thought to be correct. It's easy for you to sit there and dismiss me, but frankly you haven't addressed a single point. That's ok, cause I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me unless you can produce some groundbreaking research I haven't read about. I invite you to try, and don't point me to talkorigins. The thing with sites like talkorigins.org is that they address ridiculous claims made by the ridiculous ID movement. This movement is the world's largest exporter of strawmen, and countering these does nobody any good except that it wastes time of the ID community as well as the "scientific" community.
;)
No movie, either.
But I guess either are better than a half-eaten doughnut
Nice ploy. Just move the issue, then. "Oh, you see, that's a separate branch of study." Evolution, without explaining the origin of life, is like buying a half-eaten doughnut. If you believe in abiogenesis, then you necessarily believe in evolution. If you believe life was created, then evolution becomes very tenuous. You must choose one, and follow through to the natural conclusion. Evolution, as it is currently taught, *depends* on abiogenesis. Evolution is critically injured by the notion that life is a product of a creator, and that's precisely why evolutionists ridicule the idea of a god.
I have to congratulate you for cutting to the real issue. It's not creation vs evolution. It's creation vs abiogenesis.
Although I believe in creation, I am not part of any ID movement. You won't find me trying to legislate my beliefs, but in the broadest sense of the word I believe in intelligent design. I have real issues with the ID movement, they are to belief in a creator as terrorists are to Islam.
I'll answer your question as well as it can be answered. If you believe in some type of Big Bang theory, where did the singularity come from? It's really the same question. Both require one to accept the unexplainable (not unexplained; unexplainable) existence of something, be it a creator or some point that is infinitely dense and infinitely small. In other words, it's faith.
I think belief in a creator is more reasonable. Here's why: Believing a creator exists is a product of evidence (and just because the evidence is abundant and obvious to even a child doesn't mean it is not evidence!) The evidence is order. In any other context, order and design mean that there is a designer. In nature, everything adheres to natural laws. These laws are the basis of science, they are the constants that allow scientists to make inferences based on past observations. Even things that appear chaotic adhere to natural laws. People here talk as though it's simpler to ignore abundant evidence (structure, order) and believe in no creator. These people then misplace the burden of proof and come up with cute and admittedly amusing false analogies about flying spaghetti monsters and orbiting teapots and whatever else the latest Dawkins book told them to think. If you are going to assert that a creator doesn't exist, you have to go to great lengths and grasp at straws and what-ifs and maybes and over-the-course-of-billions-of-years to explain life and order. You can then convince yourself and maybe even others who desperately need to latch onto *something* that you are just so damn clever you killed God.
I have never heard of a scientific experiment where life was created from nonlife, and even then, a scientific experiment implies that there was someone there monitoring and encouraging the process. If such an experiment exists, share it. Until that experiment happens (and it won't), there is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for believing in abiogenesis (and without abiogenesis, one cannot leave a creator of some kind out of the picture, evolution or not). Heck, even the classic Miller-Urey experiment couldn't produce *life*; it only produced some amino acids. Sure, that's the first step...but one step doesn't get you far. Scientists in a laboratory replicating the optimal conditions *assumed* to have existed a very long time ago and almost succeeding but not quite is not enough to convince me that life came about on its own. Sorry. You'll have to do MUCH better than that. And I am inviting anyone reading this to do so. So come on, hit me with your evidence for abiogenesis. I'll be waiting.
So, which option sounds like mythology to you?
No, that's not it at all. I see people make that point again and again, that believing in creation means that you can no longer make scientific discoveries and question how things work. That's a strawman argument, and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point at hand. In fact, the debate isn't so much creation vs evolution as it is creation vs abiogenesis.
Creation is not an argument from ignorance. First, a disclaimer: I am not defending the whole ID movement (because, yes they do indeed bend or fabricate science "fact" to fit their political agenda). Creation is compatible with science, if viewed as the Bible teaches stripped of what I like to call "Bible philosophy". Modern ID is neither compatible with the Bible nor with science. It's a POLITICAL movement using religion to leverage popular support. Or maybe it's a religious movement using politics to leverage popular support. Same difference, religion and politics are a bad, bad mixture.
The modern political movement that calls itself ID is flat out unscientific, and at best takes liberties with the Bible. For example, does the bible say that the earth or universe is 6000 years old? No. Does the bible say that all life came about in six literal days? Only if you are uber literal, but then if you apply the same literal stance elsewhere in the Bible, you are insane to believe a word of it anyhow. In fact, that's how critics of the Bible attack it, but taking things out of context or taking everything literally. Regardless, the ID movement does more harm to its own cause than anyone else needs to. You don't need to shoot someone who just shot himself in the foot repeatedly. Ok, disclaimer over. Back to the point at hand.
If one believes in creation, one can still question how things work and make discoveries. Believing in creation is accepting evidence at hand. How can that be said? Because: in any other context, when we see design (i.e. order, structure) we rightly infer that it was designed. Order implies a designer.
Sure, some things appear to be chaotic. But even then, physical laws still apply. And laws imply a lawmaker. Why do I have to keep repeating that?
It's not a matter of saying "ah shucks, that's really complex and we can't explain it, so we'll just use our elastic clause: God did it!" It's simply recognizing that since there is so much order in the universe, that someone must have had a hand in it. It's just like accepting that there is so much evidence for relativity that it is reasonable to conclude it's true. Believing a creator exists is a product of evidence (and just because the evidence is abundant and obvious to even a child doesn't mean it is not evidence!) People here talk as though it's simpler to ignore abundant evidence and believe in no creator and then come up with cute false analogies about flying spaghetti monsters and orbiting teapots and whatever else the latest Dawkins book says. If you are going to assert that a creator doesn't exist, you have to go to great lengths and grasp at straws and what-ifs and maybes and over-the-course-of-billions-of-years to explain life and order and convince yourself and maybe even others that you killed God. Which option sounds like mythology to you?
I have never heard of a scientific experiment where life was created from nonlife, and even then, a scientific experiment implies that there was someone there monitoring and encouraging the process. If such an experiment exists, share it. Until that experiment happens (and it won't), there is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for believing in abiogenesis (and without abiogenesis, one cannot leave a creator of some kind out of the picture, evolution or not). Heck, even the classic Miller-Urey experiment couldn't produce *life*; it only produced some amino acids. Sure, that's the first step...but one step a journey doesn't make. Scientists in a laboratory replicating the optimal conditions *assumed* to have existed a very long time ago and almost succeeding but not quite is no
hehe, I know. Funny part is that is used to be worse than it is now. I was kind of sad when I went there before posting it only to see that it sucks less than it did.
Cowboy hat and a kimono...that's actually a good analogy. IE is wearing a the cowboy hat and a kimono...one on each foot. As someone who codes everything according to web standards, I can tell you that IE is the one that doesn't adhere to standards. Coding to artificial standards (as in..."Hey, it works in IE!" is just plain dumb.
I have found from years of experience that only hacks make claims about cross browser coding taking longer and not being cost effective. It doesn't take long to code properly. It takes longer to *learn* how to code properly. But aren't we professionals here? Shouldn't we learn and do things the right way? I say yes, and not only for the admittedly academic reason of doing it right. Coding to standards reduces maintenance costs and saves bandwidth. It ensures forward compatibility, to a reasonable degree. And it makes your content semantic.
When you code to standards, and have the experience to know what won't work in IE without hacks, you can code sites that work in all standards compliant browsers + IE. That's just about every traditional browser. And if you do it a certain way, that's even text-only browsers like lynx or links.
well damn, what a waste of time! One minute of viewing that pile of crap I have no idea what Jefferson Planners or whatever they were called even does.
This is really fun, trading these sites. Here is another one: http://hvysl.org/
That's certainly good advice, but if you are going to complain about someone complaining about someone's spelling (the other most pathetic of all slashdot rejoinders, BTW), make sure you know which post was replied to.
;) And I replied not because the person misspelled something, but because the person was being a jerk.
I didn't reply to that post, in other words. The post I replied to misspelled the word genius, ironically enough.
How's this for a meta-discussion?
It was a joke. Relax.
Thanks for the trivia. Who are you, Cliff Claven?
Musicians aren't necessarily uninformed. What a stupid assumption.
If you are going to insult someone, at least use proper spelling when doing so. Don't look dumb when trying to insult someone else's intelligence.
Exactly. Plus, your IP is tracked everywhere. In order for this to work, ISPs would have to maintain some centralized repository of IPs and who these IPs belong to, which would be accessible to everyone with a web site (so they could at least see what not to keep track of). Not only would this be extremely difficult to maintain, it would create a privacy nightmare. And that's just IPs. Then you'd have to prevent cookies (which you can just disable if your a paranoid whacko). Then your MAC address. And so on. Can someone say unenforceable law?
"who you know, not what you know. Even in tech."
;)
Funny you should mention that, was talking with a friend just last week who just changed jobs and is looking again (and thus has recent experience in the job market)...and he said the same thing. Depressing, because I don't have the connections.
You should link to your site in your user profile
"Apparently wanting to enrich ones self with new skills and knowledge is verboten in government jobs and the private sector isn't looking much better."
Yeah, that sounds about right. Companies don't care about tech, they just want stuff to work, more of the same and such. Sad but true. Maybe that works for COBOL or RPG programmers, but if you do anything related to the web and you are doing what you did four years ago, then you are probably doing it wrong.
I think part of the trick is sounding like someone who likes learning and is willing to find better ways to solve problems, but not somebody who is going to lead a project down a dead end road of learning some obscure, bleeding edge technology. And you might scare some places by stating that you like to learn. That'll help you filter out the places you don't want to work, anyhow. Places that want stagnant people who do things the same way they have always done them get what they deserve -- the same old problems they have always had.
I had one guy (with whom I interviewed recently, yes I am at that stage now) tell me that with my attitude towards new tech, I should be a consultant. Been thinking seriously about that, too. There's a thought for you. Like he told me, as a consultant your job security is tied to your skills rather than being tied to some upper management pencil-neck. In theory, that sounds great.
"I understand that learning new skills is a good thing, and that moving around might keep one fresh, but what's so wrong with being comfortable?"
:)
Not disagreeing with you, but I want to clarify one point I made. Don't confuse comfort with complacency. You can stay in one place and still grow, if conditions are right. If conditions weren't right, I would have moved on a long time ago.
Anyone who works in a tech related field and wants to stagnate, *should* be walked out the door IMHO. I have heard folks at my company say stuff like "AJAX? Why should I learn that? I have been coding web pages the same way for ten years!" Well, when dealing with tech, you cannot rest on your laurels. Being comfortable with a work environment, team, or whatever doesn't automatically mean that you can stop learning and growing. That's a sure way to kill not only your career at a large company, but also and future prospects of a new job. That stagnant, complacent attitude among tech people gets under my skin worse than anything, maybe even worse than people who eat while talking on the phone
You are assuming the people who make the decisions are aware of or care about your competency. Often those decisions are made far up the management chain. Those in your management chain who are aware of your competency are often powerless. I am convinced that's how corporations work by design: layers of abstraction so that nobody in particular is responsible for anything, and everything is done by the big machine.
I work at a very large company, and have for a relatively long time by today's standards. I have seen it happen time and again. People who are very good at what they do are sometimes just working on the "wrong" project. Often it's projects, not people, who get offshored or outsourced.
Yes, I know I said I have been at my job for a while, but don't be so quick to judge. Some of us have a very cozy niche where we are given a lot of creative latitude, work with a great team, and get to do a lot of self-initiated stuff. As soon as that changes, I am SO done with this place. Or maybe I am being crazy, but the summary made me feel a little defensive.
Eh, not sure who I replied to. This new layout on /. is a bit confusing. I dunno, someone seemed to say that I-IV-V is categorically lame and I had to jump on it. I might have misread, too.
Thanks a lot for posting the changes to that song. Ever go to http://sontrellis.com? It has the changes to lots of songs (mostly gifs) as well as midi sequences that you can play over. This song is there, but no chord chart. Now I can play over the midi sequence and know what I am playing over without having to figure it out.
Nice talking with you.
OP doesn't know what he's talking about. The bible outrightly condemns certain things. Christians cannot accept these things as OK. Doing so dismisses the parts of the bible, and yet the bible makes the claim that it is divinely inspired. So what, was God lying about parts of it? I may not agree with you on anything else regarding religion, but I agree with you here: either be a > or don't.
The difference is that the bible doesn't tell Christians to hate anyone. The bible also doesn't teach that all bad people go to hell. The bible doesn't teach that all good people go to heaven. These are corruptions to the original teachings. Christians are in no position to judge. God does that, Christians are to 1) respect God's laws, 2) respect other people, and 3) share their beliefs. And no, sharing beliefs doesn't mean forcing or legislating one's own belief. It doesn't mean meddling in politics, or killing abortion doctors, or beating up homosexuals, or inciting political uprising, or...the list goes on. I share my belief with you, and if you are interested I tell you more. Likewise, you are also free to share your belief (or lack thereof) with me. If you aren't interested, I move on and leave you be in peace. That's how Jesus lived. He was kind and cared for people, not some ill-tempered ascetic that modern religion has painted him to be.
Of course, recent and ancient history clearly shows that nominal Christians simply aren't and haven't been for about 1800 years. The don't even believe in the very book they claim is the basis for their religion. No wonder so many of you are atheists; you're smart enough to see through the hypocrisy and think for yourselves. But please do not confuse God with the religions out there. Personally, I believe he exists and has more displeasure with religion than all of the atheists and homosexuals put together. At least atheists and homosexuals don't *claim* to represent him and then do a piss poor job of it.
Alright, got my asbestos trousers on. Have at it.
I checked out that song...nice. I thought I heard some ii-V-I turnarounds in there, but I could be wrong. Do you *know* the changes for that song? What are they?
What I meant by inversions of I-IV-V are things like the venerable ii-V-I or even maybe a VIIdim-I. Same principle. All of those and many more are derivatives of the I-IV-V. Jazz finds one of its roots in the blues, and jazz brought the I-IV-V with it. Yes, I know...even a ii-V-I isn't technically a I-IV-V, but its the same concept and really serves the same purpose. It's a turnaround, it provides tension and release. It propels the music along.
I-IV-V in itself can go a long way. Listen to the blues, and hear how much those guys squeezed out of that progression. Complex changes aren't the only way to make music interesting. I understand what you meant...people play three chords and wheedle and warble over it and call it music. But that doesn't mean that the I-IV-V change is bad. It's a white canvas, it's up to you to paint it.
Oh, don't be so quick to dismiss the humble I-IV-V.
Sure, it's easy to pick up and make a song with it. Sure, pop, rock, and just about everything else is built around the I-IV-V. That doesn't dilute the power of the I-IV-V. There's a lot to be said for taking a simple canvas and working with it. It comes from the blues and evolved to jazz (in the form of ii-V-I). It's a formula, and one that you can squeeze a lot out of. I could point you to some songs that use a I-IV-V that would blow you away. You probably could too. The V-I is a natural resolution and that's really what the I-IV-V is built around. I can think of loads of songs that are really just V-I and accomplish the same effect (there's a reason the IV is called the subdominant). In fact, show me a song that *doesn't* use some inversion of a V-I turnaround at least once and I'll show you a song that goes nowhere.
The I-IV-V is like bread: it's been around forever and ain't going anywhere. It's a staple. Don't hate the recipe just because some people can't cook.
Haha, yes, the NKOTB reunion. A close source tells me that they have been carefully planning this for years. You may think that they are just doing because a decade of meth use, cross dressing, and frequent and questionable use of mayonnaise have landed them into some financial woes, but that's what they want you to think. They are lulling everyone into a false sense of complacency and then WHAM! just like that, they are going to blow you away. Just you wait, you with your sarcastic NKOTB bashing. Just... you... wait...
As a musician, I actually think it's kind of neat. I could actually have some fun with something like this.
Machines cannot replace musicians. Music is emotional. It is improv. It is creative. Machines do as they are told, and even if they have some complex AI going on, they can still only function according to the parameters they are given. And since a human has to program the machine, the machine cannot be a better musician than the person or persons who programmed it. There is a difference between playing chords to a song and making it your own. Think of all the jazz standards, for example. How many different versions are there of, for example, Misty? Countless. Or how many songs use Gershiwn's "Rhythm" changes? Check this out: http://songtrellis.com/changesPage. Lots of chord changes there. But each version of each song is unique. Music is art. It's not about who is technically "better" or who plays the changes perfectly; oftentimes it the deviations from perfection that can make a song so compelling. Until someone makes a machine with the ability to improvise in response to the lead singer or soloist, convey emotion, *enjoy* music, and discover new things through taking risks and making mistakes, musicians won't become obsolete whatever that means, as if people won't still enjoy making music even if machines *could* do it better.
It's a neat toy, and nothing more. And if crappy pop music uses machines for a backing band, who would even notice? With that form of music, the background music is like the tires on your bike, you don't care about them until they blow. The teenies who buy that crap don't care about music, they are buying into a fantasy that they can be cool and popular and all the crap the pop icon represents. I'd bet that the musicians who back the likes of the Backstreet Boys and Britney and so forth hate it anyhow, they are probably being paid well to be musically bored to death. I feel sorry for those guys. It'd be such a drag to back up a bunch of no talent rich kids. Now, that's a perfect job for machines. Automate the mundane, do the interesting stuff.
Nah, it went like this:
...give you a bad review and make you work on something menial like minesweeper.
...send your car to the pound. With your dogs inside.
...paint your head green and call your aunt really nasty names.
...put milk in your toilet, and feces in your tea.
...spill orange juice in your refrigerator and hide your towels.
...make you have a serious surgery and install Vista on your life support systems.
...open a can of beans and make you drink the juice.
...make you light your grandmother's farts on fire on chili night.
...eat lots of spam and sing pirate songs.
...sail to the Bahamas and make you come right back without getting on the beach.
...plaster pictures of you getting your nostrils raped on myspace.
...send you to NYC dressed like an 17th century nobleman.
...start taunting you in languages you don't speak and show you our knees.
MSFT: Nick, Vista was a complete flop. We are holding you responsible. You can either leave and say that you were chasing another opportunity and save face or we'll...
(your choice)
I'll bet it was a picnic.