>This freedom of press report should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm no expert on >press in most of the world, but based on how it represents local press I have to >conclude it to be pretty inaccurate.
That reminds me of the linux vs windows security vulnerability reports; linux is open so you can see all the problems. Windows is closed so you can only see some of the problems. Comparing them based on which problems you can see is naive.
I don't see how that would really explain much one way or the other.. you have of course the fact that most universities promote evolution, and people with higher IQs often gravitate towards a University education of some sort. But then you have to ask, do Universities promote evolution because it's the smart thing to promote, or do smart people tend to believe evolution is correct because a bunch of other smart people do?
In the end, like Is aid, it doesn't really promote anything one way or the other, because whether or not the people who believe it is correct are highly intelligent isn't the question - the question is whether the theory is correct or not.
Sigh. My *point* is, I have not yet seen anything that convinces me that evolution is any more likely (or even as likely) to explain things properly than creationism is. If or when I ever do, I will re-evaluate my position. Until then I will stick with my current hypothesis, theory, or whatever in the world you wish to call it. I really don't care what it's *called*, I care what it *is* - and what it is is something that explains to me how I got here, and what my purpose here is. Whilst fulfilling that purpose I intend to keep on learning, and I have no objections to the scientific method in general.
>This is not the same as a layman's use of the notion "theory".
I know that. I'm not a layman. I read slashdot, therefore I am smart;);)
No, actually, I'm studying for my Bachelor of Science (in Comp & Info Sys) so I don't think it would be unfair to claim to be a computer scientist, at least 'in training'...
But then again, 'layman' means "not a member of the clergy, or not a member of a given profession" (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1995) - so actually I guess I have to admit that I am a layman after all, drat it, since I'm not *currently* a member of *any* profession:)
>Evolutionary theory has now reached the point that most scientists don't focus on attempting to "disprove" the central tenants of Darwin's theory.
That's not my point; my point is you all seem to act as if it's already been proven(or at least brought to the point where nobody has any real arguments against it, like with the theory of gravity or the pythagorean theorem), and therefore arguing against it is futile (resistance is futile...)
>You might not want to admit that you are far more like a chimp genetically than say a mouse
I didn't say I didn't want to admit I'm genetically similar to a chimp, but so what if I am? I'm also more genetically similar to a mouse than to a rock. Still, so what? I'm also genetically similar to anything that *HAS* genes. That doesn't even come close to convincing me that we are all descended from a rock, let alone a chimp. Also, I don't know what your thing about a random God means here.. according to the generally accepted creationist view, the reason that the genes in a chimp and a man are very similar is because the same God created us. That, to me, taken by itself and without any other considerations, makes just as much sense as the evolutionist view taken the same way. In other words, we're using the same evidence to come to different conclusions..
>the evident truth of Darwin's theory (consistent body of observations)... Namely that to dismiss it is literally to "bear false witness" of the creation of man.
You're still confusing the meaning of evident. Evident means *YOU* think there's enough there to call it likely. Or maybe you and all the highly trained scientists. But you know what? I have seen highly trained programmers create computer bugs. I have heard stories of highly trained doctors who killed their patients because they bled them to death, because it was the theory held to be the most correct at their time (supposedly bleeding out the bad blood left only the good blood). Highly trained does not mean correct.
So what, you say, that means I am throwing training and thought out the window? No, I am not. I am throwing the evolution theory out the window, because *I* have not seen any argument that makes it evident to *me* that it is more correct than the creationist viewpoint. In other words, I am sticking with my theory - creation - until I find one that's better. Which is the same thing evolutionists are doing, except they have a different starting point - so how can you say they're scientists and then turn around and say I'm not?
The rest of your post is good, but I'd just like to point out here that although *science* does not aim to disprove religion, *evolution does*. If you think I'm wrong, please, go read biographies on all of the early promoters of evolution.
So, is that a reason in itself to disbelieve evolution? Not necessarily, but I think it's a good reason to look critically at evolution in order to decide whether you/we/Them/whoever think it's a good theory because it's a good theory, or because those early promoters did a good job of promoting it as if it was a good theory, when all it realy was was an excuse to get rid of this whole "God" idea?
>Evolution stands strong for many reasons, including the total failure of any potential falsifying observations to come about despite ample opportunity.
But mostly just because it continues to be taught to everybody who goes through public school, who then go out into the field and use their dogmaticly taught principles of evolution to further prove evolution.. say, does that sound a little familiar to some kind of teaching that is supposedly anathema to science?
>However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer.
Just because it's talked about the most doesn't make it the most well established. It's pretty darn new to be "one of the most well established"... and it hasn't been "proven" yet (I know you didn't say that, but I'd just like to point it out) or it wouldn't still be called the "theory of evolution", you know.
>It is supported by evidence extremely well
But remember, evidence != proof, they're two different things. Evidence only means you've convinced the judge (or jury).. not that the accused actually did it. The two *usually* correlate, but not always.
>And if you publicly come out against it and in favor of some alternative theory for which the only evidence is a religious text, chances are pretty damn good that you are incapable of holding a logical thought in your head to begin with.
There is as much *evidence* for creationism as for evolution; we are here, we have not always been here, therefore it is evident that we got here somehow. If you meant *proof* please say proof:)
Funny, too, Darwin was studying to be a priest in the episcopal church if I remember correctly.. but I suppose that just because he 'reformed his ways' he's okay?
>And it's a simple fact that people who publicly oppose evolution tend to be quite vocal in not only bashing scientists as a group, but bashing science in general as an inferior source of knowledge as compared to religion- an apples to oranges comparison if there ever was one.
I would greatly like to have a real study done on that, instead of just your opinion, because I hadn't noticed that. I have no problem with scientists - but scientists can be just as wrong as anybody else can.
>If you are against Darwin, you are probably against science.
Don't be ridiculous. Believing in something I can't see doesn't make me not believe in the things I can see. I'm just not wearing the same colour of rosy glasses as you are when I look at fossil records. Yours are rose, mine are green, or something.. and we see two different things. Neither has been proved or it *wouldn't be called the theory of evolution*. It hasn't been proved. So stop saying that disagreeing with it is disagereeing with science.
Come on, people.. slashdot is supposed to be all these highly educated geeks.. and yet you're so silly as to think that anyone who disagrees with the popular view (or maybe it would be better to say 'the cool view' since, admit it, we all like scientists, which is why we're geeks in the first place) is bashing all of science? I mean, think abotut that for a minute: you think just because I believe in something that I can't prove (God)(and that's considering you don't think I can prove there is a god), I therefore don't believe in the concept of proving things?
I also believe that the square of the length of the hypotenuse of any right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, but I can't prove that either. Am I anti-science because of that too?
"Starship Troopers" the movie was "based on the book", too. (Don't get my point? Read the book and then watch the movie.. they're two entirely different stories which happen to have a few people in them with the same names. Umm.. but different genders;) )
Evidence - there are fossils - can be viewed a lot of different ways; you're saying that I am interpreting this evidence based on my own views ("there was a creator") and I'm saying you're interpreting it based on yours ("it happened that way by chance") - we're both right, because both of us are *interpreting* that evidence, because the evidence is not conclusive enough on its own.
That's the problem with a lot of the 'evidence for evolution' - it's evident that evolution hppened if you start with that assumption, but it's also evident that evolution is not what was going on if you don't start with that assumption. So me, I'm going to go with creation until you actually have proof - not evidence. Because proof and evidence don't mean the same thing.
>Because in order to discredit evolutionary theory, those who oppose it attempt to undermine science, reason, and even empirical observation as bases of belief. The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.
I oppose the evolutionary theory. I am also in my third year of study for a Bachelor of Science degree (Computing & Info Systems) which I hope should tell you that I am *not* opposed to science.
Therefore the statement "those who oppose it [evolution] attempt to undermine science" is incorrect - I oppose evolution, and I do not seek to undermine science. I just don't think evolution is the correct interpretation of the observations.
>The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.
But if someone did oppose the theory of gravity (or heliocentricity, or whatever other currently held theories) *and* provided an alternate theory, you would *at least* consider both theories unless or until you could prove one was more likely than the other, right? And you wouldn't consider someone who claimed his own theory instead of the currently held theory of gravity to be speaking against all of science. You might consider him to be a fruitcake, but you wouldn't consider him to be anti-science just for saying the theory of gravity is the wrong way to interpet the effects we have observed.
Well, I (and a lot of other people, *most* of whom are not against the scientific method) say that evolution is the wrong interpretation for the effects we have observed.
I will grant that some people who disagree with evolution also disagree with the scientific method. I'm just trying to point out that they're not the majority; and, like, wake up, there are a *lot* of people who don't believe evolution is correct.. and not all of them are "the ignorant masses" - some of them are geeks (you know, "the smart masses") too:)
>But I have to admit that the idea of still being able to play my game after my first >disk got damaged, the little red piece of paper that had my CD key got thrown away >because it's trash on my desk I'd still be able to burn a copy of the download
Then again, it is possible to burn backup copies of nearly all games, write down the CD key in a document file and save it somewhere, or in a little black notebook of CD keys, or something similar, and *most* games have cracks to run them without the CD (or using the backup), or the ability to use some kind of ISO Image/Virtual Drive (Deamon Tools etc) setup.
Note that it's *not* illegal as far as I know to crack a game to run w/o the original CD *as long as* you own the original (although I believe it's generally against the EULA.. any comments on this from people more knowledgable about Canadian+US copyright law than I?).
>hundreds of thousands of slaughtered men/women/children because of some religion?
Not to satrt a whole nother flame war here but.. first of all it was really because of two religions, and secondly it wasn't really the religion, it was the people.
Uh.. and thirdly I'm not catholic, and fourthly I don't like the catholic religion, but still:) (I'm protestant, if you wonder)
lol, except, shouldn't that be the other way around? The catholic church had it first. Besides, I dunno what all the fuss is about, the original crosses were made purely for causing pain, not healing...
>If you make a sequel, you ensure a certain level of income from fans of the original game. The problem is, when you only make sequels, then the audience gets bored and goes away.
Actually, I agree with some of the earlier posts, the problem is not sequels - it's *poor* sequels.
The first Final Fantasy I played was 8 - I (or siblings) have since played 5, 7, 9, 10, etc. The first Elder Scrolls I played was morrowind, which is the third.. and I am looking forward quite eagerly to Oblivion, and I doubt I'll be disappointed. The first Quake I ever played was 2, and although I haven't played 3 or 4 directly (I did play various games made from the Q3 engine, and honestly, that's what the Quake games are for is the engine..) I played GTA original, and I've played mostly every one since, with the exception of GTA2 (never got around to it).
The key is actually *adding* something to the game in the sequel, instead of just making an expansion pack; some sequels do this, some don't, and it's the ones that don't which are mainly in line with what you said.
Another key is how much you capitalize on the fact that it's a sequel; GTA, FFs, and Elder Scrolls all have connected storylines, but they're generaly not *directly* connected; any game I've played (note how I say played: I haven't played everything so if I'm missing out on your favourite game's sequel plz don't flame;) ) with a directly connected storyline ended up doing it poorly (or worse, like Doom, just had the exact same storyline). Which doesn't mean you can't make a good sequel that's actually a proper sequel (read: what I'm saying is that most of my examples are not actually proper sequels), it just means I haven't seen it done yet.
>One of the biggies is that the audience for games is getting older.
True, but that's the average age - I doubt it means there are *less* fifteen year olds playing games today than there were 20 years ago. In fact I'm pretty sure there are more... I've been playing computer games since I was 6 years old, but that was only 15 years ago.
>Feeding into the problem, parents are getting sick of buying every $50 game and new gaming >hardware for their kids every year. This is especially true when parents are game-savvy enough to >see that Madden '06 is Madden '05 with prettier graphics and an updated team roster. Or that this >year's FPS hit is the same FPS engine as last year with new characters.
is why the feminists want to be the same as men, serve in the army, etc, if it's safer to be a woman... you've already got a sweet deal, what's the problem?!
(note to anyone who feels like flaming me: I'm kidding)
>I have a feeling that a lot of the future growth and innovation in the market is going to come from handheld systems (due to lower development costs), and from companies like Nintendo who aren't so concerned with milking every last polygon from the hardware, but are more focused on innovations in gameplay.
That, or devs should be spending more time working on game development *tools* instead of on a particular game.. sure, I know, they do spend a lot of time on tools, or, in the case of FPSs, on the engines.. but there's a good example for you, actually: some pretty good games (including user-made mods) are made out of various FPS engines (Vampires: Bloodlines is from the HL-2 engine, Jedi Knight 2 from Quake3, or Half-Life original from Quake2 engine - Counterstrike, Natural Selection, Desert Siege, etc etc etc not to mention America's Army: Operations, which is IMHO the best multiplayer squad-oriented game:) ) - of course I realize that opens the door to making poorly made sequels that just don't have the same name or developer as the original, but still, the better the tools you have, the easier (hence cheaper) it is to make a game. After all, they do that with business programming (CASE tools, and various other kinds of tools for developers).
Honestly, my vision of the (far, far) future is where it would be as easy to make a game as to have a dream;) That, or has anyone read John Ringo's "There Will be Dragons" series? I speak of the part in the first book (the dragons one, I think) where Herzer is combatting a bunch of orks using bow, sword, etc, and the sim is realistic enough that it's as if he is actually there. Something like the matrix, except without Agent Smith, and you're allowed to disconnect.. and a lot of people ould probably prefer to run it in smaler groups, plus NPCs, because most real people won't want to play the janitor:)
>What an almost pointless study. >Maturity sets in when responsibility is a requirement.
I think the point is supposed to be *physical maturity*... which is not about when a person *does* make good judgements, but when they are *capable* of making good judgements; which is a huge distinction.
Then again, I may be wrong, from the quote below... From the article: "When do we reach adulthood? It might be much later than we traditionally think."
On the other hand, some people are 5'6" tall and some are 6'8" tall.. the 5'6" people may not be as big, but they can still do most things a 6'8" person can. 18 year olds may not have brain development as 25 year olds - it doesn't mean they can't make most or possibly even all the same decisions. How do I know that? Err duh, because most of them *do* make the same judgements. Emperical evidence. Do you want to make it so nobody qualifies as an adult 'capable of making judgments' unless they are as smart as einstein? Some (most) people will never make it. Just like most people will never be 6'8" (unless you put them on the rack, which is kind of painful).
(Sorry if that last paragraph was a little garbled, but I am trying to draw a connection between 'smaller now but will get bigger' and 'smaller and always will be smaller')
Maybe the problem with what they're saying here is our concept of "adult"... adult means "a mature person" ("Webster's New World Dictionary", copyright date 1995) (which I believe means primarily 'physicaly mature', although the connotation usually includes 'mentally mature'), but do you really need to be totaly mature (physically) in order to be considered an adult (mentally) in terms of responsibility and accountability? There ought to be (well, is, usually) an age (or at least *some* measurable factor) at which, if a person is ignorant of a certain law, and brakes it, they'll still be punished.. because they *souldn't* have been ignorant of that law. They should have *educated themselves* about that law - as an adult they have that responsibility.
So when does that age come into play? In Alberta, that age is 18; if you're younger (even a day younger) you don't actually have a resposibility to know the laws, or, really, to adhere to them. It gets a bit tricky sometimes, but that's the gist of it. So, it seems, what this article is suggesting is that age (18) ought to be extended since people aren't actually finished growing at 18.
But what I am asking is.. so what? I lean much more towards Heinlein's view. You don't need to be fully mature in order to be held responsible under the law - in fact you *shouldn't be*! It's bad for you. You need to be held accountable as soon as you are even capable of understanding the laws - which is much younger than when you're totally physically mature. Puppies should not be allowed to poop in the house as long as they're not fully grown.. and children/teenagers should not be allowed to do wahtever they want as long as they're not fully grown (yes, I know, they aren't generally - but they *are* let off easier than "adults" who do the same things; and honestly, how is a 17 1/2 year old who murders someone different from an 18 year old who murders someone?).
Wow, it sucks that Canada's government doesn't have the guts to do what Blizzard does. Of course, Blizzard has a stupid reason for it (cuz other people will whine? How about cause we don't like people to do that?)
On the other hand, we already have games with robbery, and assault and battery (not to mention murder), etc etc in them, so I guess same-sex marriages wouldn't be all that different...
Except of course that a lot of people seem to think there isn't any problem with same-sex marriages in real life.
>Making the victim responsible is a commonly done, in particular if it's a rape case. Wearing a mini-skirt or beeing black appears to be a crime in it self.
Umm.. miniskirts are designed to make guys look at girls. That's what they're for. Does that make it okay for a guy to rape a girl if she's wearing a miniskirt? No. But it *is* a provocation (a minor one, honestly, but still, it's DESIGNED to create lust in the guy - the girl wouldn't be wearing it if that wasn't what she intended).
If guy A insults guy B, and then guy B beats guy A half to death with a baseball bat, guy B's actions were not okay. But they *were* provoked.
I am not defending the perpetrator. Guy A didn't "get what was coming to him" nor did the girl. In fact, maybe it's better to think of it as two entirely seperate incidents - one is Guy A mouthing off, and the other is Guy B beating Guy A sensless. That's a handy way to hink of it because you can see the disparity.. Guy A mouthed off, which wasn't nice. Guy B beat Guy A senseless, which not only *really* wasn't nice, it was also quite criminal.
Being black.. well.. any guy who rapes a girl just because she's black (or white, or yellow, or purple, or green...) is even lower in my opinion than a guy who rapes a girl at all (which, by the way, is very very very low). And in that case it's purely the guy's problem.
>The only thing worse than a movie based on a video game is a video game based on a movie.
Oddly enough, though, a lot of the Star Wars games are quite good.. I say oddly because I personally never really thought Star Wars was all that great (and don't get started on bashing episodes 1-3; I meant the originals, too).
>The whole "Hot Coffee" debacle is a crock of shit. If Sims 2 was as popular as GTA:SA, I'm sure we'd be reading about suing Maxis over the decensor patch instead. But since it's not, there isn't an uproar.
Sims 2 may not be as popular as SA, but it's still awfully popular (like, what was it, a million copies in the first 10 days, compared to SA's 2 million or something?).. as far as I can tell the only real major distinguishing factor between the two is that Sims doesn't *already* have a big crowd lining up to complain about it, mainly because it lacks the other elements - bad language and violence - that SA and its predecessors have had. That and maybe the fact that Sims is a 'home simulator' whereas SA is a 'gang simulator'.. I dunno, you tell me?
>Furthermore, I have emulators and ROMs for our old NES and SNES so I don't have to drag those boxes out and hook them up; we just play on the PC. They get a kick out of the old graphics, and I do, too.
Hah! That's nothing - ever since I got a ROM emulator for the computer, my 14 year old brother spends all his computer time playing Final Fantasy V and Seiken Densetsu 3 (or however it's spelled), and all this other oldschool stuff, and he won't play Battlefield or SWAT4 or anything else over the LAN with me because he's busy playing his "favourite game":)
>Yes it is amazing to see anti-scientist attack evolution when we know the theory of gravity is the weakest theory of all. Almost seems they are afraid to say they don't beleive in gravity:D
Just so you know... not all people who are against the theory of evolution are against scientists or science. In fact, I don't think I've ever met anyone who is against science in general or against scientists, but I know *lots* of people who are against evolution. In fact, I'm currently working on my third (of four) year for my Bachelor's degree (in Computing Science of course;) ) from Athabasca University (in other words, I fancy myself somewhat of a scientist), and I'm still a creationist.
Being against the theory of evolution is no more being against science than being against any other paticular theory upheld by certain scientists (whether it be a majority or not) is.
The theory of evolution is only one theory - a very poor theory, IMHO - it's not the Sum of All Science.
>I fully understand that under a true voucher system, some people will choose some pretty >ignorant things. The alternative is to force everyone except the very wealthy to learn >whatever the median voter believes (ie, the current system).
But the real question is, who decides what is or isn't ignorant? Last I heard, there were more people in the U.S. who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old than there are who believe it's more thn a million. So, if the U.S. was really going to be democratic (and this is assuming that 'the last I heard' is still true) about it, schools should be teaching that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Seriously, though, who's going to decide what is or is not an 'ignorant' thing to do? Doctors used to bleed their patients out when they had a fever, because they figured getting rid of the 'bad blood' would help. Would the average person at that time have just let the fever be, which actually might have given them a better chance at living? The bleeding was the "educated" thing to do, but it was wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
>This freedom of press report should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm no expert on
>press in most of the world, but based on how it represents local press I have to
>conclude it to be pretty inaccurate.
That reminds me of the linux vs windows security vulnerability reports; linux is open so you can see all the problems. Windows is closed so you can only see some of the problems. Comparing them based on which problems you can see is naive.
I don't see how that would really explain much one way or the other.. you have of course the fact that most universities promote evolution, and people with higher IQs often gravitate towards a University education of some sort.
But then you have to ask, do Universities promote evolution because it's the smart thing to promote, or do smart people tend to believe evolution is correct because a bunch of other smart people do?
In the end, like Is aid, it doesn't really promote anything one way or the other, because whether or not the people who believe it is correct are highly intelligent isn't the question - the question is whether the theory is correct or not.
>Spoken like one who does not do science.
;) ;)
:)
... Namely that to dismiss it is literally to "bear false witness" of the creation of man.
Sigh. My *point* is, I have not yet seen anything that convinces me that evolution is any more likely (or even as likely) to explain things properly than creationism is. If or when I ever do, I will re-evaluate my position. Until then I will stick with my current hypothesis, theory, or whatever in the world you wish to call it. I really don't care what it's *called*, I care what it *is* - and what it is is something that explains to me how I got here, and what my purpose here is. Whilst fulfilling that purpose I intend to keep on learning, and I have no objections to the scientific method in general.
>This is not the same as a layman's use of the notion "theory".
I know that. I'm not a layman. I read slashdot, therefore I am smart
No, actually, I'm studying for my Bachelor of Science (in Comp & Info Sys) so I don't think it would be unfair to claim to be a computer scientist, at least 'in training'...
But then again, 'layman' means "not a member of the clergy, or not a member of a given profession" (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1995) - so actually I guess I have to admit that I am a layman after all, drat it, since I'm not *currently* a member of *any* profession
>Evolutionary theory has now reached the point that most scientists don't focus on attempting to "disprove" the central tenants of Darwin's theory.
That's not my point; my point is you all seem to act as if it's already been proven(or at least brought to the point where nobody has any real arguments against it, like with the theory of gravity or the pythagorean theorem), and therefore arguing against it is futile (resistance is futile...)
>You might not want to admit that you are far more like a chimp genetically than say a mouse
I didn't say I didn't want to admit I'm genetically similar to a chimp, but so what if I am? I'm also more genetically similar to a mouse than to a rock. Still, so what? I'm also genetically similar to anything that *HAS* genes. That doesn't even come close to convincing me that we are all descended from a rock, let alone a chimp.
Also, I don't know what your thing about a random God means here.. according to the generally accepted creationist view, the reason that the genes in a chimp and a man are very similar is because the same God created us. That, to me, taken by itself and without any other considerations, makes just as much sense as the evolutionist view taken the same way. In other words, we're using the same evidence to come to different conclusions..
>the evident truth of Darwin's theory (consistent body of observations)
You're still confusing the meaning of evident. Evident means *YOU* think there's enough there to call it likely. Or maybe you and all the highly trained scientists. But you know what? I have seen highly trained programmers create computer bugs. I have heard stories of highly trained doctors who killed their patients because they bled them to death, because it was the theory held to be the most correct at their time (supposedly bleeding out the bad blood left only the good blood). Highly trained does not mean correct.
So what, you say, that means I am throwing training and thought out the window? No, I am not. I am throwing the evolution theory out the window, because *I* have not seen any argument that makes it evident to *me* that it is more correct than the creationist viewpoint.
In other words, I am sticking with my theory - creation - until I find one that's better. Which is the same thing evolutionists are doing, except they have a different starting point - so how can you say they're scientists and then turn around and say I'm not?
>Science does not aim to disprove religion,
The rest of your post is good, but I'd just like to point out here that although *science* does not aim to disprove religion, *evolution does*. If you think I'm wrong, please, go read biographies on all of the early promoters of evolution.
So, is that a reason in itself to disbelieve evolution? Not necessarily, but I think it's a good reason to look critically at evolution in order to decide whether you/we/Them/whoever think it's a good theory because it's a good theory, or because those early promoters did a good job of promoting it as if it was a good theory, when all it realy was was an excuse to get rid of this whole "God" idea?
>Evolution stands strong for many reasons, including the total failure of any potential falsifying observations to come about despite ample opportunity.
But mostly just because it continues to be taught to everybody who goes through public school, who then go out into the field and use their dogmaticly taught principles of evolution to further prove evolution..
say, does that sound a little familiar to some kind of teaching that is supposedly anathema to science?
>However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer.
:)
Just because it's talked about the most doesn't make it the most well established. It's pretty darn new to be "one of the most well established"... and it hasn't been "proven" yet (I know you didn't say that, but I'd just like to point it out) or it wouldn't still be called the "theory of evolution", you know.
>It is supported by evidence extremely well
But remember, evidence != proof, they're two different things. Evidence only means you've convinced the judge (or jury).. not that the accused actually did it. The two *usually* correlate, but not always.
>And if you publicly come out against it and in favor of some alternative theory for which the only evidence is a religious text, chances are pretty damn good that you are incapable of holding a logical thought in your head to begin with.
There is as much *evidence* for creationism as for evolution; we are here, we have not always been here, therefore it is evident that we got here somehow. If you meant *proof* please say proof
Funny, too, Darwin was studying to be a priest in the episcopal church if I remember correctly.. but I suppose that just because he 'reformed his ways' he's okay?
>And it's a simple fact that people who publicly oppose evolution tend to be quite vocal in not only bashing scientists as a group, but bashing science in general as an inferior source of knowledge as compared to religion- an apples to oranges comparison if there ever was one.
I would greatly like to have a real study done on that, instead of just your opinion, because I hadn't noticed that.
I have no problem with scientists - but scientists can be just as wrong as anybody else can.
>If you are against Darwin, you are probably against science.
Don't be ridiculous. Believing in something I can't see doesn't make me not believe in the things I can see. I'm just not wearing the same colour of rosy glasses as you are when I look at fossil records. Yours are rose, mine are green, or something.. and we see two different things. Neither has been proved or it *wouldn't be called the theory of evolution*. It hasn't been proved. So stop saying that disagreeing with it is disagereeing with science.
Come on, people.. slashdot is supposed to be all these highly educated geeks.. and yet you're so silly as to think that anyone who disagrees with the popular view (or maybe it would be better to say 'the cool view' since, admit it, we all like scientists, which is why we're geeks in the first place) is bashing all of science? I mean, think abotut that for a minute: you think just because I believe in something that I can't prove (God)(and that's considering you don't think I can prove there is a god), I therefore don't believe in the concept of proving things?
I also believe that the square of the length of the hypotenuse of any right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, but I can't prove that either. Am I anti-science because of that too?
>punctuated equilibria based on evidence.
;) )
"Starship Troopers" the movie was "based on the book", too. (Don't get my point? Read the book and then watch the movie.. they're two entirely different stories which happen to have a few people in them with the same names. Umm.. but different genders
Evidence - there are fossils - can be viewed a lot of different ways; you're saying that I am interpreting this evidence based on my own views ("there was a creator") and I'm saying you're interpreting it based on yours ("it happened that way by chance") - we're both right, because both of us are *interpreting* that evidence, because the evidence is not conclusive enough on its own.
That's the problem with a lot of the 'evidence for evolution' - it's evident that evolution hppened if you start with that assumption, but it's also evident that evolution is not what was going on if you don't start with that assumption. So me, I'm going to go with creation until you actually have proof - not evidence. Because proof and evidence don't mean the same thing.
>Because in order to discredit evolutionary theory, those who oppose it attempt to undermine science, reason, and even empirical observation as bases of belief. The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.
:)
I oppose the evolutionary theory. I am also in my third year of study for a Bachelor of Science degree (Computing & Info Systems) which I hope should tell you that I am *not* opposed to science.
Therefore the statement "those who oppose it [evolution] attempt to undermine science" is incorrect - I oppose evolution, and I do not seek to undermine science. I just don't think evolution is the correct interpretation of the observations.
>The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.
But if someone did oppose the theory of gravity (or heliocentricity, or whatever other currently held theories) *and* provided an alternate theory, you would *at least* consider both theories unless or until you could prove one was more likely than the other, right? And you wouldn't consider someone who claimed his own theory instead of the currently held theory of gravity to be speaking against all of science. You might consider him to be a fruitcake, but you wouldn't consider him to be anti-science just for saying the theory of gravity is the wrong way to interpet the effects we have observed.
Well, I (and a lot of other people, *most* of whom are not against the scientific method) say that evolution is the wrong interpretation for the effects we have observed.
I will grant that some people who disagree with evolution also disagree with the scientific method. I'm just trying to point out that they're not the majority; and, like, wake up, there are a *lot* of people who don't believe evolution is correct.. and not all of them are "the ignorant masses" - some of them are geeks (you know, "the smart masses") too
>can cause all kids of carnage.
Haven't you read the label?! It says keep *AWAY* from children!!
>But I have to admit that the idea of still being able to play my game after my first
>disk got damaged, the little red piece of paper that had my CD key got thrown away
>because it's trash on my desk I'd still be able to burn a copy of the download
Then again, it is possible to burn backup copies of nearly all games, write down the CD key in a document file and save it somewhere, or in a little black notebook of CD keys, or something similar, and *most* games have cracks to run them without the CD (or using the backup), or the ability to use some kind of ISO Image/Virtual Drive (Deamon Tools etc) setup.
Note that it's *not* illegal as far as I know to crack a game to run w/o the original CD *as long as* you own the original (although I believe it's generally against the EULA.. any comments on this from people more knowledgable about Canadian+US copyright law than I?).
>hundreds of thousands of slaughtered men/women/children because of some religion?
:)
Not to satrt a whole nother flame war here but.. first of all it was really because of two religions, and secondly it wasn't really the religion, it was the people.
Uh.. and thirdly I'm not catholic, and fourthly I don't like the catholic religion, but still
(I'm protestant, if you wonder)
lol, except, shouldn't that be the other way around? The catholic church had it first.
Besides, I dunno what all the fuss is about, the original crosses were made purely for causing pain, not healing...
>If you make a sequel, you ensure a certain level of income from fans of the original game. The problem is, when you only make sequels, then the audience gets bored and goes away.
;) ) with a directly connected storyline ended up doing it poorly (or worse, like Doom, just had the exact same storyline). Which doesn't mean you can't make a good sequel that's actually a proper sequel (read: what I'm saying is that most of my examples are not actually proper sequels), it just means I haven't seen it done yet.
Actually, I agree with some of the earlier posts, the problem is not sequels - it's *poor* sequels.
The first Final Fantasy I played was 8 - I (or siblings) have since played 5, 7, 9, 10, etc.
The first Elder Scrolls I played was morrowind, which is the third.. and I am looking forward quite eagerly to Oblivion, and I doubt I'll be disappointed.
The first Quake I ever played was 2, and although I haven't played 3 or 4 directly (I did play various games made from the Q3 engine, and honestly, that's what the Quake games are for is the engine..)
I played GTA original, and I've played mostly every one since, with the exception of GTA2 (never got around to it).
The key is actually *adding* something to the game in the sequel, instead of just making an expansion pack; some sequels do this, some don't, and it's the ones that don't which are mainly in line with what you said.
Another key is how much you capitalize on the fact that it's a sequel; GTA, FFs, and Elder Scrolls all have connected storylines, but they're generaly not *directly* connected; any game I've played (note how I say played: I haven't played everything so if I'm missing out on your favourite game's sequel plz don't flame
>One of the biggies is that the audience for games is getting older.
:)
True, but that's the average age - I doubt it means there are *less* fifteen year olds playing games today than there were 20 years ago. In fact I'm pretty sure there are more... I've been playing computer games since I was 6 years old, but that was only 15 years ago.
>Feeding into the problem, parents are getting sick of buying every $50 game and new gaming
>hardware for their kids every year. This is especially true when parents are game-savvy enough to
>see that Madden '06 is Madden '05 with prettier graphics and an updated team roster. Or that this
>year's FPS hit is the same FPS engine as last year with new characters.
Ah, now *that* is a good point
is why the feminists want to be the same as men, serve in the army, etc, if it's safer to be a woman... you've already got a sweet deal, what's the problem?!
(note to anyone who feels like flaming me: I'm kidding)
>I have a feeling that a lot of the future growth and innovation in the market is going to come from handheld systems (due to lower development costs), and from companies like Nintendo who aren't so concerned with milking every last polygon from the hardware, but are more focused on innovations in gameplay.
:) ) - of course I realize that opens the door to making poorly made sequels that just don't have the same name or developer as the original, but still, the better the tools you have, the easier (hence cheaper) it is to make a game.
;) :)
That, or devs should be spending more time working on game development *tools* instead of on a particular game.. sure, I know, they do spend a lot of time on tools, or, in the case of FPSs, on the engines.. but there's a good example for you, actually: some pretty good games (including user-made mods) are made out of various FPS engines (Vampires: Bloodlines is from the HL-2 engine, Jedi Knight 2 from Quake3, or Half-Life original from Quake2 engine - Counterstrike, Natural Selection, Desert Siege, etc etc etc not to mention America's Army: Operations, which is IMHO the best multiplayer squad-oriented game
After all, they do that with business programming (CASE tools, and various other kinds of tools for developers).
Honestly, my vision of the (far, far) future is where it would be as easy to make a game as to have a dream
That, or has anyone read John Ringo's "There Will be Dragons" series? I speak of the part in the first book (the dragons one, I think) where Herzer is combatting a bunch of orks using bow, sword, etc, and the sim is realistic enough that it's as if he is actually there.
Something like the matrix, except without Agent Smith, and you're allowed to disconnect.. and a lot of people ould probably prefer to run it in smaler groups, plus NPCs, because most real people won't want to play the janitor
>What an almost pointless study.
>Maturity sets in when responsibility is a requirement.
I think the point is supposed to be *physical maturity*... which is not about when a person *does* make good judgements, but when they are *capable* of making good judgements; which is a huge distinction.
Then again, I may be wrong, from the quote below...
From the article:
"When do we reach adulthood? It might be much later than we traditionally think."
On the other hand, some people are 5'6" tall and some are 6'8" tall.. the 5'6" people may not be as big, but they can still do most things a 6'8" person can. 18 year olds may not have brain development as 25 year olds - it doesn't mean they can't make most or possibly even all the same decisions. How do I know that? Err duh, because most of them *do* make the same judgements. Emperical evidence.
Do you want to make it so nobody qualifies as an adult 'capable of making judgments' unless they are as smart as einstein? Some (most) people will never make it. Just like most people will never be 6'8" (unless you put them on the rack, which is kind of painful).
(Sorry if that last paragraph was a little garbled, but I am trying to draw a connection between 'smaller now but will get bigger' and 'smaller and always will be smaller')
Maybe the problem with what they're saying here is our concept of "adult"... adult means "a mature person" ("Webster's New World Dictionary", copyright date 1995) (which I believe means primarily 'physicaly mature', although the connotation usually includes 'mentally mature'), but do you really need to be totaly mature (physically) in order to be considered an adult (mentally) in terms of responsibility and accountability? There ought to be (well, is, usually) an age (or at least *some* measurable factor) at which, if a person is ignorant of a certain law, and brakes it, they'll still be punished.. because they *souldn't* have been ignorant of that law. They should have *educated themselves* about that law - as an adult they have that responsibility.
So when does that age come into play? In Alberta, that age is 18; if you're younger (even a day younger) you don't actually have a resposibility to know the laws, or, really, to adhere to them. It gets a bit tricky sometimes, but that's the gist of it. So, it seems, what this article is suggesting is that age (18) ought to be extended since people aren't actually finished growing at 18.
But what I am asking is.. so what? I lean much more towards Heinlein's view. You don't need to be fully mature in order to be held responsible under the law - in fact you *shouldn't be*! It's bad for you. You need to be held accountable as soon as you are even capable of understanding the laws - which is much younger than when you're totally physically mature.
Puppies should not be allowed to poop in the house as long as they're not fully grown.. and children/teenagers should not be allowed to do wahtever they want as long as they're not fully grown (yes, I know, they aren't generally - but they *are* let off easier than "adults" who do the same things; and honestly, how is a 17 1/2 year old who murders someone different from an 18 year old who murders someone?).
Wow, it sucks that Canada's government doesn't have the guts to do what Blizzard does. Of course, Blizzard has a stupid reason for it (cuz other people will whine? How about cause we don't like people to do that?)
On the other hand, we already have games with robbery, and assault and battery (not to mention murder), etc etc in them, so I guess same-sex marriages wouldn't be all that different...
Except of course that a lot of people seem to think there isn't any problem with same-sex marriages in real life.
>Making the victim responsible is a commonly done, in particular if it's a rape case. Wearing a mini-skirt or beeing black appears to be a crime in it self.
Umm.. miniskirts are designed to make guys look at girls. That's what they're for.
Does that make it okay for a guy to rape a girl if she's wearing a miniskirt? No.
But it *is* a provocation (a minor one, honestly, but still, it's DESIGNED to create lust in the guy - the girl wouldn't be wearing it if that wasn't what she intended).
If guy A insults guy B, and then guy B beats guy A half to death with a baseball bat, guy B's actions were not okay. But they *were* provoked.
I am not defending the perpetrator. Guy A didn't "get what was coming to him" nor did the girl. In fact, maybe it's better to think of it as two entirely seperate incidents - one is Guy A mouthing off, and the other is Guy B beating Guy A sensless. That's a handy way to hink of it because you can see the disparity.. Guy A mouthed off, which wasn't nice. Guy B beat Guy A senseless, which not only *really* wasn't nice, it was also quite criminal.
Being black.. well.. any guy who rapes a girl just because she's black (or white, or yellow, or purple, or green...) is even lower in my opinion than a guy who rapes a girl at all (which, by the way, is very very very low). And in that case it's purely the guy's problem.
>The only thing worse than a movie based on a video game is a video game based on a movie.
Oddly enough, though, a lot of the Star Wars games are quite good.. I say oddly because I personally never really thought Star Wars was all that great (and don't get started on bashing episodes 1-3; I meant the originals, too).
>The whole "Hot Coffee" debacle is a crock of shit. If Sims 2 was as popular as GTA:SA, I'm sure we'd be reading about suing Maxis over the decensor patch instead. But since it's not, there isn't an uproar.
Sims 2 may not be as popular as SA, but it's still awfully popular (like, what was it, a million copies in the first 10 days, compared to SA's 2 million or something?).. as far as I can tell the only real major distinguishing factor between the two is that Sims doesn't *already* have a big crowd lining up to complain about it, mainly because it lacks the other elements - bad language and violence - that SA and its predecessors have had. That and maybe the fact that Sims is a 'home simulator' whereas SA is a 'gang simulator'.. I dunno, you tell me?
>Furthermore, I have emulators and ROMs for our old NES and SNES so I don't have to drag those boxes out and hook them up; we just play on the PC. They get a kick out of the old graphics, and I do, too.
:)
Hah! That's nothing - ever since I got a ROM emulator for the computer, my 14 year old brother spends all his computer time playing Final Fantasy V and Seiken Densetsu 3 (or however it's spelled), and all this other oldschool stuff, and he won't play Battlefield or SWAT4 or anything else over the LAN with me because he's busy playing his "favourite game"
>Yes it is amazing to see anti-scientist attack evolution when we know the theory of gravity is the weakest theory of all. Almost seems they are afraid to say they don't beleive in gravity :D
;) ) from Athabasca University (in other words, I fancy myself somewhat of a scientist), and I'm still a creationist.
Just so you know... not all people who are against the theory of evolution are against scientists or science. In fact, I don't think I've ever met anyone who is against science in general or against scientists, but I know *lots* of people who are against evolution.
In fact, I'm currently working on my third (of four) year for my Bachelor's degree (in Computing Science of course
Being against the theory of evolution is no more being against science than being against any other paticular theory upheld by certain scientists (whether it be a majority or not) is.
The theory of evolution is only one theory - a very poor theory, IMHO - it's not the Sum of All Science.
Hey, your dad is just like my dad! :D
My dad told me that when I was like 5.
Too bad everbody else's dad isn't like our dads, eh?
>I fully understand that under a true voucher system, some people will choose some pretty
>ignorant things. The alternative is to force everyone except the very wealthy to learn
>whatever the median voter believes (ie, the current system).
But the real question is, who decides what is or isn't ignorant?
Last I heard, there were more people in the U.S. who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old than there are who believe it's more thn a million. So, if the U.S. was really going to be democratic (and this is assuming that 'the last I heard' is still true) about it, schools should be teaching that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Seriously, though, who's going to decide what is or is not an 'ignorant' thing to do? Doctors used to bleed their patients out when they had a fever, because they figured getting rid of the 'bad blood' would help. Would the average person at that time have just let the fever be, which actually might have given them a better chance at living? The bleeding was the "educated" thing to do, but it was wrong.