My country, which exists but prefers to remain anonymous for the sake of its personal safety, was told to make stupid laws by your country. Your country said they'd stop trading with my country if my country didn't make stupid laws. So my country made stupid laws and it's all your country's fault.
Doesn't it sound a little paranoid, even spurious, to suggest the USA threatened another country with a "trade war" over said country's refusal to pass a completely ridiculous law that (since copyright is subjective to state) wouldn't even serve benefit to the USA? If it happened, your country (which, I suspect, is not Denmark, as some have thought, but is actually called The United [Until We Were Threatened And Were Told Not To Be United Anymore Because It's A Copyright Infringement, Even Though It Isn't, That's How Bad Your Country Is These Days] States Of My Country) is very silly. I suggest you move to a country that respect your privacy a little more, such as the USA, or, if you intend to break copyright, France.
And it works. At least from the experience of foxtrot who, referencing his experience as a computer salesman, commented:
Joe Average, however, often asked, "But does it have the Intel inside?" (often using that exact phrasing-- "the Intel.")
Scroll down for the rest of his comment.
Also, my wife's manufactured HP has an AMD. I know, you said said "not very often", not "not at all", but I thought you'd like to know of at least one manufactured computer that comes with an AMD.
Burn themselves? Absolutely, especially at the heat this 2Ghz Pentium laptop produces.
On these winter nights, we crowd around it for heat.
I'm toasting marshmallows on it as I type.
You know those guys in hazmat suits on the old commercials? If you've ever tried putting an Intel laptop on your lap, you'll have discovered for yourself why those suits were more than gimmick.
I still believe that a creationist can accept evolutionary process. Evolution is a process that applies to living things; everything dead is incapable of reproduction and therefore incapable of demonstrating evolutionary change. Creation is one approach at explaining the source of life in this universe. To put things another way, someone who believes things were created doesn't necessarily believe they were created as they now are. Creation is a one-time act, evolution is an ongoing process. Scientific theories that contradict the theory of creation may well do so, but evolution does not threaten or compromise creation theories, it only elaborates on them.
To my mind, hampering scientists in their studies is revealing of a lack of faith; someone who feels that evolution cannot possibly exist should not worry about proof to the contrary ever emerging. That aside, you raise a good point -- science could well be a threat to religions whose beliefs conflicts with fact. This is good news: since all religions claim to be the true religion, science is a useful weeding tool! It eliminates false religion in a peaceful manner! The enemy of my enemy...
Interesting comparison to mooncheese. It seems you accept that recognition of the process evolution need not conflict with or compromise religious belief. Creationists are indeed free to accept speciation without accepting universal common descent. In this way, it's quite possible for a religious person to accept evolution without compromising belief in a god or in the origin of life. After all, free will means nothing unless we execute it.
I don't believe there is ever a good (justifiable) cause for ridicule or persecution. Not only that, but their use could damage the reputation of the scientific community in the same way that their use destroyed the reputation of the religious community. In psychology, ridicule is often regarded as a shield, not a weapon; the defense of a playground bully. Also, ridicule further damages the reputation of the scientific community in the eyes of the creationist. Creationists don't need to view the scientific community as an enemy, there should be no cause to do so. However, if it seems to a creationist that the entire scientific community is laughing at them for a personal belief, they may be discouraged from interest in that community's findings.
This argument goes both ways. In fact, it's only an argument if it goes both ways.
BTW, do you have any links to material re. the 'complex eye' debate? Perhaps an essay? Much obliged.
Below from Merriam-Webster's definition of "daring":
1 a : to challenge to perform an action especially as a proof of courage <dared him to jump> b : to confront boldly : DEFY <dared the anger of his family>
2 : to have the courage to contend against, venture, or try <the actress dared a new interpretation of this classic role>
1 : to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER
It seems that your definitions of both "daring" and "persecution" could well differ greatly from my own and also those of Merriam-Webster.
You'll have to accept my word that I used the words "dared" and "persecuted" as I interpreted the above citations. By using those words outside the scope of your experience, I did not intend to diminish the evils perpetrated against great scientists of the past any more than Merriam-Webster did by using the example of an actress.
The moon/cheese theory has been disproved, as have many other silly theories. Neither evolution nor creation can be disproved, and evidence of one does not disprove the other. Whether or not creationism is scientific, there is no good cause for proponents of evolution to ridicule or persecute creationists. Whether or not evolution is to be considered "heretic", there is no good cause for proponents of ID to ridicule or persecute evolutionists. Both actions would be injusticies. I agree that many religious institutions are unjust, I simply argue that injustice is not restricted to religious institutions and that evolutionary biologists are starting to gain the influence over common belief once enjoyed by clergymen. How they use this influence is entirely up to them.
The word "dare" implies boldness. To "dare" is to face any persecution, including ridicule. Darwin, for example, was a daring man. So, it seems, is a Dr. Richard Sternberg, who tried to do just as you suggested and challenge the scientific community:
"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."
Many folks I know lean towards evolution simply because they feel that scientists are more intelligent folk, though. Rather than having researched and understood the process of evolution, they felt it was scientist's job to do this for them, just as it was once thought a clergyman's job to oversee religious matters. Evolution, as it's taught in the classroom, is as explanatory and does as much service to the subject as a single Sunday sermon can do to the subject of religion.
Also, "Because the clergyman says so" is becoming "Because the scientist says so". Importantly, scientists translate their Latin and must explain their reasoning. However, outside of scientific journals, media coverage of scientific discoveries is dumbed down to a level at which it reads, most literally, "Because the scientist says so."
I agree with your comment, but in my own peers I see a new and hip generation of youths who say they believe in evolution simply because they're told by evolutionists that to believe otherwise is petty and closed-minded. Their faith in evolution is no less blind and uneducated as the average creationists is. And I can't help but wonder, who is petty and closed minded? Everyone, it's starting to seem.
More and more, media is aimed toward the youth. The current youth doesn't represent the vocal voting bloc and seems (even here in the bible belt) strongly opposed to the party in power.
Except in Kansas, an evolutionist has to travel pretty far to become an underdog. More and more, creationists are becoming the underdogs, ridiculed and chastised for daring to challenge the scientific community.
That's why creationists receive media attention; media obsession with the underdog.
I thought the real breakthrough was when they cracked Mickey's genetic code and found out that while man shares 96% DNA with chimps, he also shares 90% DNA with mice, his other cousin.
Woman refuses to share DNA.
That is correct, and it's a very true saying. Rome wasn't built in a day, Rome was the result of a day's improbably complex tectonic movments. Rome wasn't built at all. Or that's the modern theory.
Personally, I'm a Rome-Construction Apologist. I believe that the modern theory of the actual events leading to Rome's 'construction' do not have to conflict with The Holy Saying. After all, The Holy Saying says "Rome wasn't built in a day," and the theory of Earthquake says, "Rome wasn't built at all," so one doesn't have to contradict the other.
It's a shame that so many forces in history have tried to hold up the idea that Rome was actually builtintentionally (the Romans, for example). In more modern history, this kind of bigotry has subsided and people have come to accept that there is no archival footage, photographic evidence or witness evidence supporting the theory of Intelligent Architecture. Yes, it's a possibility, but we in the scientific community have to be realistic about these things.
Other spelling variations found in KBE literature:
- "Kansas" "Board" of "Education"
- Kansas Board of Education. Honest.
- Kansas, Bored with Education
- Kansas Mod of Education
- Kansas Board of Holy Education
- The Lord's Board
I think the argument is that if your bathroom were involved in an earthquake and all those ingredients - against a bit of probability - were flung together in just the right way...
Earthquakes have also been known to erect entire cities.
That's how Rome got built in a day.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing something, probably a 21st century browser.
Paraphrased:
My country, which exists but prefers to remain anonymous for the sake of its personal safety, was told to make stupid laws by your country. Your country said they'd stop trading with my country if my country didn't make stupid laws. So my country made stupid laws and it's all your country's fault.
Doesn't it sound a little paranoid, even spurious, to suggest the USA threatened another country with a "trade war" over said country's refusal to pass a completely ridiculous law that (since copyright is subjective to state) wouldn't even serve benefit to the USA? If it happened, your country (which, I suspect, is not Denmark, as some have thought, but is actually called The United [Until We Were Threatened And Were Told Not To Be United Anymore Because It's A Copyright Infringement, Even Though It Isn't, That's How Bad Your Country Is These Days] States Of My Country) is very silly. I suggest you move to a country that respect your privacy a little more, such as the USA, or, if you intend to break copyright, France.
...every time I heard that sound it just made me want to cringe.
Implies that you thought about cringing, even desired to cringe, but couldn't bring yourself to actually cringe. What held you back?
And it works. At least from the experience of foxtrot who, referencing his experience as a computer salesman, commented:
Joe Average, however, often asked, "But does it have the Intel inside?" (often using that exact phrasing-- "the Intel.")
Scroll down for the rest of his comment.
Also, my wife's manufactured HP has an AMD. I know, you said said "not very often", not "not at all", but I thought you'd like to know of at least one manufactured computer that comes with an AMD.
Burn themselves? Absolutely, especially at the heat this 2Ghz Pentium laptop produces.
On these winter nights, we crowd around it for heat.
I'm toasting marshmallows on it as I type.
You know those guys in hazmat suits on the old commercials? If you've ever tried putting an Intel laptop on your lap, you'll have discovered for yourself why those suits were more than gimmick.
Thanks for the link!
I still believe that a creationist can accept evolutionary process. Evolution is a process that applies to living things; everything dead is incapable of reproduction and therefore incapable of demonstrating evolutionary change. Creation is one approach at explaining the source of life in this universe. To put things another way, someone who believes things were created doesn't necessarily believe they were created as they now are. Creation is a one-time act, evolution is an ongoing process. Scientific theories that contradict the theory of creation may well do so, but evolution does not threaten or compromise creation theories, it only elaborates on them.
To my mind, hampering scientists in their studies is revealing of a lack of faith; someone who feels that evolution cannot possibly exist should not worry about proof to the contrary ever emerging. That aside, you raise a good point -- science could well be a threat to religions whose beliefs conflicts with fact. This is good news: since all religions claim to be the true religion, science is a useful weeding tool! It eliminates false religion in a peaceful manner! The enemy of my enemy...
Kidding!
Interesting comparison to mooncheese. It seems you accept that recognition of the process evolution need not conflict with or compromise religious belief. Creationists are indeed free to accept speciation without accepting universal common descent. In this way, it's quite possible for a religious person to accept evolution without compromising belief in a god or in the origin of life. After all, free will means nothing unless we execute it.
I don't believe there is ever a good (justifiable) cause for ridicule or persecution. Not only that, but their use could damage the reputation of the scientific community in the same way that their use destroyed the reputation of the religious community. In psychology, ridicule is often regarded as a shield, not a weapon; the defense of a playground bully. Also, ridicule further damages the reputation of the scientific community in the eyes of the creationist. Creationists don't need to view the scientific community as an enemy, there should be no cause to do so. However, if it seems to a creationist that the entire scientific community is laughing at them for a personal belief, they may be discouraged from interest in that community's findings.
This argument goes both ways. In fact, it's only an argument if it goes both ways.
BTW, do you have any links to material re. the 'complex eye' debate? Perhaps an essay? Much obliged.
Below from Merriam-Webster's definition of "daring":
1 a : to challenge to perform an action especially as a proof of courage <dared him to jump> b : to confront boldly : DEFY <dared the anger of his family>
2 : to have the courage to contend against, venture, or try <the actress dared a new interpretation of this classic role>
"persecuting":
1 : to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER
It seems that your definitions of both "daring" and "persecution" could well differ greatly from my own and also those of Merriam-Webster.
You'll have to accept my word that I used the words "dared" and "persecuted" as I interpreted the above citations. By using those words outside the scope of your experience, I did not intend to diminish the evils perpetrated against great scientists of the past any more than Merriam-Webster did by using the example of an actress.
The moon/cheese theory has been disproved, as have many other silly theories. Neither evolution nor creation can be disproved, and evidence of one does not disprove the other. Whether or not creationism is scientific, there is no good cause for proponents of evolution to ridicule or persecute creationists. Whether or not evolution is to be considered "heretic", there is no good cause for proponents of ID to ridicule or persecute evolutionists. Both actions would be injusticies. I agree that many religious institutions are unjust, I simply argue that injustice is not restricted to religious institutions and that evolutionary biologists are starting to gain the influence over common belief once enjoyed by clergymen. How they use this influence is entirely up to them.
Interesting comment regarding Steinberg.
The word "dare" implies boldness. To "dare" is to face any persecution, including ridicule. Darwin, for example, was a daring man. So, it seems, is a Dr. Richard Sternberg, who tried to do just as you suggested and challenge the scientific community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg
"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."
Sounds awfully like persecution to me.
For more information on Sternberg, here is a link to his site:
http://www.rsternberg.net/
Touché.
Many folks I know lean towards evolution simply because they feel that scientists are more intelligent folk, though. Rather than having researched and understood the process of evolution, they felt it was scientist's job to do this for them, just as it was once thought a clergyman's job to oversee religious matters. Evolution, as it's taught in the classroom, is as explanatory and does as much service to the subject as a single Sunday sermon can do to the subject of religion.
Also, "Because the clergyman says so" is becoming "Because the scientist says so". Importantly, scientists translate their Latin and must explain their reasoning. However, outside of scientific journals, media coverage of scientific discoveries is dumbed down to a level at which it reads, most literally, "Because the scientist says so."
I agree with your comment, but in my own peers I see a new and hip generation of youths who say they believe in evolution simply because they're told by evolutionists that to believe otherwise is petty and closed-minded. Their faith in evolution is no less blind and uneducated as the average creationists is. And I can't help but wonder, who is petty and closed minded? Everyone, it's starting to seem.
More and more, media is aimed toward the youth. The current youth doesn't represent the vocal voting bloc and seems (even here in the bible belt) strongly opposed to the party in power.
It was a T-Rex and a domestic cat, actually.
Eventually, dogs replaced the T-Rex as the most popular non-feline household pet, but the name "Rex" was still kept for the sake of nostalgia.
The cat's name was Tiddles.
Except in Kansas, an evolutionist has to travel pretty far to become an underdog. More and more, creationists are becoming the underdogs, ridiculed and chastised for daring to challenge the scientific community.
That's why creationists receive media attention; media obsession with the underdog.
I thought the real breakthrough was when they cracked Mickey's genetic code and found out that while man shares 96% DNA with chimps, he also shares 90% DNA with mice, his other cousin. Woman refuses to share DNA.
You forget: the Apollo missions were faked because the CIA already had a fully operational moonbase.
Several agents are currently Missing In Action, presumed dusty, or just plum squished.
Isn't the saying "Rome wasn't built in a day"?
That is correct, and it's a very true saying. Rome wasn't built in a day, Rome was the result of a day's improbably complex tectonic movments. Rome wasn't built at all. Or that's the modern theory.
Personally, I'm a Rome-Construction Apologist. I believe that the modern theory of the actual events leading to Rome's 'construction' do not have to conflict with The Holy Saying. After all, The Holy Saying says "Rome wasn't built in a day," and the theory of Earthquake says, "Rome wasn't built at all," so one doesn't have to contradict the other.
It's a shame that so many forces in history have tried to hold up the idea that Rome was actually built intentionally (the Romans, for example). In more modern history, this kind of bigotry has subsided and people have come to accept that there is no archival footage, photographic evidence or witness evidence supporting the theory of Intelligent Architecture. Yes, it's a possibility, but we in the scientific community have to be realistic about these things.
Other spelling variations found in KBE literature: - "Kansas" "Board" of "Education" - Kansas Board of Education. Honest. - Kansas, Bored with Education - Kansas Mod of Education - Kansas Board of Holy Education - The Lord's Board
I think the argument is that if your bathroom were involved in an earthquake and all those ingredients - against a bit of probability - were flung together in just the right way... Earthquakes have also been known to erect entire cities. That's how Rome got built in a day.
"This isn't an armed robbery, I'm just pointing this gun at you in case you inadvertently overlook giving me all your money."