Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Edit. Reopening. Offensive posts deleted by Frazzled. No attacks on other countries unless in jest or risk permanent suspension of your account.

The best of all is... all this mess began because someone told that T-rex ate coconuts.... incredible....

Black Corsair wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Edit. Reopening. Offensive posts deleted by Frazzled. No attacks on other countries unless in jest or risk permanent suspension of your account.

The best of all is... all this mess began because someone told that T-rex ate coconuts.... incredible....

Coconut eating T-Rex hatas gonna hate.

Frazzled wrote:

Black Corsair wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Edit. Reopening. Offensive posts deleted by Frazzled. No attacks on other countries unless in jest or risk permanent suspension of your account.

The best of all is... all this mess began because someone told that T-rex ate coconuts.... incredible....

Coconut eating T-Rex hatas gonna hate.

Hate???..pfff worthless of hate i think..

mattyrm wrote:You can attack the British though right?

If its good enough for my great great great great great great grandfather, its good enough for me. Vive Jackson! Vive New Orleans! Now go you steenking Englishmaan or I shall taunt you a second time.

dogma wrote:

Crom wrote:
In the world of physics there is only one reality.

Yes, and in the world of physics "universe" does not mean the same thing it does in colloquial parlance. From that perspective "universe" references a body of space-time possessed of a homogeneous set of physical laws. There can, theoretically, exist more than one of these provided that they are themselves connected by a few discreet, principle objects.

Crom wrote:
Now in philosophy, like chan buddhism, and everything is just an illusion and nothing is as it seems is nothing near science.

No, that's also wrong. The idea that everything that we perceive is illusory is at the core of many scientific disciplines. In fact, it could be argued that's what the scientific method itself is about.

Crom wrote:
All scientific documentation and papers referring to multiple realities, or parallel universes is quite a stretch of the imagination using known frameworks as a basis to prove, that it is possible. However, that is the extent of where you can get with that. We know gravity exists, it is now scientific law. We have laws of thermodynamics and they have not yet been broken. These things can be simulated and proven to exist. Mutliple universes cannot.

No, it can't, but neither can a single universe. We can prove that this universe exists, and therefore that there must be at least one universe, but we cannot prove that there is only one universe.

Crom wrote:
The idea that there is only one universe is all we got to go on for now, and that is what I am going to stick with. You can hardly parallel believing in 1 universe is just as science fiction as believing in multiple. I already know the universe I live in exists.

You've argued two different things there. There is a distinction between believing in the existence of one thing, and believing in the existence of only one thing. For example, I might believe in the existence of one man and be though rational, but if I said that I believed in the existence of only one man I would be thought mad.

OK, well this is going off topic and I admit theoretical physics is not my forte, but where exactly are you getting all this stuff? From my understanding, albeit limited, is that the whole concept of multiple realities and parallel universes is completely theoretical with no empirical evidence supporting such claims.

I mean I like the idea and recently became of fan of the new Dr Who series, but that is all science fiction.

EDIT: Ok cleared up posts that got this off topic. Lets get back to topic or it will be closed permanently.

Crom wrote:

In the world of physics there is only one reality.

In the world of Quantum physics there are quite a few more. I refer you to the many worlds interpretation, where not every reality even follows the same rules, depending on what order various things took place in the infinity small space of time following the big bang.

As far as proofs go, mathematically they exist. Actual physical evidence has not been gathered, per se, but it's real science not just science fiction.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Look around you, how many times to you see evolution placed as atheistic doctrine. It even happens here, repeatedly, its a common meme.

Atheism also gets attached to National Socialism. There are all kinds of ridiculous because people in general have poorly considered political views.
But people believing silly things doesn't make them true.

Are you trying to tell me you cant find evidence of an attempt to generate a connection between atheist claims in the non-existance of God and evolution? Look harder, in fact look at all.
If it were once or twice, but its a major propaganda theme.

sebster wrote:
No, your understanding is terrible. You've had days to go off and actually read about these concepts and actually learn something, actually find out what these terms mean instead of making up stuff in your own head. Here we are in the information age, with all this knowledge at our fingertips, and you'd rather keep spamming nonsense over and over again instead of spending ten minutes learning what things actually mean.

Here's wiki to explain it to you;
"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution."
"Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.""

The first accepts evolution as science has learned about it, and says 'God did that'. This form is not only fine with science, it embraces science.

The second looks to challenge or discredit evolution, using pseudo-scientific arguments. It denies that macro-evolution can exists. It denies that random processes can give form to structure. It denies that organisms as we currently see them could ever have formed from simpler organisms.

It iis the latter form that invents nonsense like the idea that dinosaurs eat coconuts. Do you get it now, can you let this go? They're two different concepts with very different beliefs and motives behind them. Can you please let go of the made thing inside your head and accept the actual realities of the situation now, please?

Lets take a good long look at this.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

This is heavily quoted by wikipedia wghich appears to be where you are drawing your info from..

"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution."
comes from that site.

Take a good look at their FAQ.

It covers forur basic questions, the first of which is what is intelligent design as quoted above.

Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

This assumes 'evolution' to represent natural selection as a random force. ID here admits to the methodology of evolution in the second sentence but omits random natural selection as the guiding force. This is indistinguishable from guided evolution.


Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.

This assumes 'creationism' to refer to young earth creationism only.


Going back to the wiki article you draw your 'knowledge' from:

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.


You see ID is a smokescreen made for tactical legal reasons in the US, just as I claimed.
It is a form of creationism but denies it is such by claiming that only young earth creationism is creationism as an internal definition. This did not work on the US courts who considered ID as to be creationism by legal definition.

Quote from wiki on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.
The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision has sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.


Guided evolution and intelligent design are one and the same thing. Guided evolution is honestly packaged creationist opinion attached to the science of evolution, this is also called neo-creationism, old earth creationism, day-age creationism and other names.
Intelligent design is just a rebranding for tactical legal reasons, which failed because the courts successfully identified ID as creationism. The science behind ID is effectively identical to evolution except in the catalyst of change being divine rather than stochastic, the same as guided evolution, just without the politics.

sebster wrote:

You are assuming a neutral setting which is not possible, so atheism is allowed to be attached to the message under the guise that 'atheism is not religion', while a right of response is often prohibited. This is the issue.

This only exists if you think there is some atheist agenda put forward in science class in the first place. Teaching kids that animals evolved from simple organisms to complex ones over millions of years is not teaching kids atheism.

Your logic is skewed. The two can appear in seperation, hence the consistent use of the word hijacking. Science has been on the curriculum for a long time, adding evolution to science teaching is logical. Atheists can then comes along to hijack it when in place as a platform to 'prove' there is no God. Normally by misadvocating creationism as young earth creationism only and thus 'disproving' the Bible.

sebster wrote:
So they're not taking over, they're just getting to say their bit (even though their bit isn't mentioned at all) without the other side getting to explain their's... is that your point?

Nope. The point is that by hijacking evolution atheism can be claimed to be science rather than religion, this is also backed up by the dogma that as atheism has no beleif in the divine it cannot be a religion. This gives atheism a tactic to gain foothold in fora where religion itself is not permitted. In terms of education allowing evolution to be taught without the caveat that evolution makes no comment on the existance or non existance of the divine gives ammo for atheists without opportunity to reply.

In communist countries this is exactly what happens, formally. In the US the opposite was initially in place with evoltion being banned from the classroom in 15 states. This was stopped, and eventually reversed because the methodology used to remove ther previous imbalance was to 'remove religion from the classrooms' under the Establishment Clause. It was only later understood that atheism is a form of religion as an of itself, due to the clouded theological definition of atheism a loophole emerges which allows atheism to attach itself to evolution while firmly preventing any counter message in th same fora.

The solution is not creationism in sceince school, a wide mulit-point theology teaching in schools is recommended for for different reasons , mostly do do with dispelling prejudice via familiarity. All that is required in evolutionary class is the inclusion of the caveat that evolution is not a theological topic and makes no claim either for or against any religious ideology, or similar wording.
Alternately atheism can be formally identified as a religious group in terms of its legal standing in schools. Either will do, though the former is less prone to abuse.

All that is occuring on this subject in the US schools system is due to tactical legal and political posturing, on both sides. This needs to be neutralised, fairly and evenly so that science is taught with a genuine level permit, and be seen to do so.

sebster wrote:
They're a lot quieter because there are so very few of them. There are so very few because by and large the church in the UK is more progressive, more committed to social causes and less to promoting religious dogma. Which in turns causes there to be less young earthers, which in turn makes them that much quieter, which means the church remains moderate, and around and around we go.

If only that were so.

sebster wrote:
If you mean jackhole atheists like the Dawkins fanclub need to stop being jackholes, then I agree, but feel the need to point out that despite all their noise and bluster these people remain entirely irrelevant to the political process. They're annoying, but they're not relevant.

Dawkins is an alarmist, but then he has probably seen a wolf. I have sympathy for him, he is on the receiving end of a lot of flak by fanatics who wont let go and so its not truly his fault that he is becoming battle worn. Though he is growing a very perceptible contempt for the religious man which doesn't help him with dealing with those who would like to listen to his opinions from across the room.

sebster wrote:
But even still, how can one be an atheist fundamentalist. 'I don't believe there's a God' really doesn't have any fundamental or non-fundamental components.

Your still overanalylsing this. For example I could be rightfully considered a 'gay Christian', I am not homosexual but a genuinely happy man, most of the time. I don't consider it wise to call myself a gay Christian because the meaning of the word gay has changed, especially in that context, though I might use the word gay in its original form in poetry. I consider myself religious though by definition religion means following the trappings of a faith group rather than to be of faith. In some churches, notably evangelical ones, being called 'religious' is a negative critique of ones spiritual walk and potentially an insult. I think that we need to use the common vernacular and so have no problems being called religious or admitting to being religious.
Fundamental-ism/-ist is a word that has changed, don't concern yourself overly that it doesn't fully make sense, plenty of words used to mean something else.

Crom wrote:

dogma wrote:

Crom wrote:
In the world of physics there is only one reality.

Yes, and in the world of physics "universe" does not mean the same thing it does in colloquial parlance. From that perspective "universe" references a body of space-time possessed of a homogeneous set of physical laws. There can, theoretically, exist more than one of these provided that they are themselves connected by a few discreet, principle objects.

Crom wrote:
Now in philosophy, like chan buddhism, and everything is just an illusion and nothing is as it seems is nothing near science.

No, that's also wrong. The idea that everything that we perceive is illusory is at the core of many scientific disciplines. In fact, it could be argued that's what the scientific method itself is about.

Crom wrote:
All scientific documentation and papers referring to multiple realities, or parallel universes is quite a stretch of the imagination using known frameworks as a basis to prove, that it is possible. However, that is the extent of where you can get with that. We know gravity exists, it is now scientific law. We have laws of thermodynamics and they have not yet been broken. These things can be simulated and proven to exist. Mutliple universes cannot.

No, it can't, but neither can a single universe. We can prove that this universe exists, and therefore that there must be at least one universe, but we cannot prove that there is only one universe.

Crom wrote:
The idea that there is only one universe is all we got to go on for now, and that is what I am going to stick with. You can hardly parallel believing in 1 universe is just as science fiction as believing in multiple. I already know the universe I live in exists.

You've argued two different things there. There is a distinction between believing in the existence of one thing, and believing in the existence of only one thing. For example, I might believe in the existence of one man and be though rational, but if I said that I believed in the existence of only one man I would be thought mad.

OK, well this is going off topic and I admit theoretical physics is not my forte, but where exactly are you getting all this stuff? From my understanding, albeit limited, is that the whole concept of multiple realities and parallel universes is completely theoretical with no empirical evidence supporting such claims.

I mean I like the idea and recently became of fan of the new Dr Who series, but that is all science fiction.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Crom wrote:

In the world of physics there is only one reality.

In the world of Quantum physics there are quite a few more. I refer you to the many worlds interpretation, where not every reality even follows the same rules, depending on what order various things took place in the infinity small space of time following the big bang.

As far as proofs go, mathematically they exist. Actual physical evidence has not been gathered, per se, but it's real science not just science fiction.

Like the TV show Fringe... some people seriously consider this a reality... those people watch too much TV

This is worth the watch. Its 45 min or so, chance vs design by PZ myers.

Mind you, he is a pretty unbashful person on the topic

BaronIveagh wrote:

Crom wrote:

In the world of physics there is only one reality.

In the world of Quantum physics there are quite a few more. I refer you to the many worlds interpretation, where not every reality even follows the same rules, depending on what order various things took place in the infinity small space of time following the big bang.

As far as proofs go, mathematically they exist. Actual physical evidence has not been gathered, per se, but it's real science not just science fiction.

I can use proofs to mathematically prove tons of stuff, that doesn't mean it actually exists. I have purchased some advanced physics books and they are on my shelf. Some Hawkings stuff, some Brian Greene, I sometimes lurk at bad astrology forums, etc. I have a very basic general knowledge of such things but nothing that deep. I just cannot seem to pry myself from science fiction, fiction, and technical manuals to jump into advanced physics books. I also have a small extensive religious text collection as well.

I am trying to teach myself too many work related things at once right now to have any extensive pleasure reading time and since my job requires zero knowledge of physics that is not a high priority at the moment. Though one of these days I am going to sit down and read them all.

Orlanth wrote:

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Look around you, how many times to you see evolution placed as atheistic doctrine. It even happens here, repeatedly, its a common meme.

Atheism also gets attached to National Socialism. There are all kinds of ridiculous because people in general have poorly considered political views.
But people believing silly things doesn't make them true.

Are you trying to tell me you cant find evidence of an attempt to generate a connection between atheist claims in the non-existance of God and evolution? Look harder, in fact look at all.
If it were once or twice, but its a major propaganda theme.

Since you obviously have this evidence, why don't you publish it?

Crom wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Crom wrote:

In the world of physics there is only one reality.

In the world of Quantum physics there are quite a few more. I refer you to the many worlds interpretation, where not every reality even follows the same rules, depending on what order various things took place in the infinity small space of time following the big bang.

As far as proofs go, mathematically they exist. Actual physical evidence has not been gathered, per se, but it's real science not just science fiction.

I can use proofs to mathematically prove tons of stuff, that doesn't mean it actually exists. I have purchased some advanced physics books and they are on my shelf. Some Hawkings stuff, some Brian Greene, I sometimes lurk at bad astrology forums, etc. I have a very basic general knowledge of such things but nothing that deep. I just cannot seem to pry myself from science fiction, fiction, and technical manuals to jump into advanced physics books. I also have a small extensive religious text collection as well.

I am trying to teach myself too many work related things at once right now to have any extensive pleasure reading time and since my job requires zero knowledge of physics that is not a high priority at the moment. Though one of these days I am going to sit down and read them all.

Meh advanced physics books are over rated to be honest, they are good for thought provoking reading but once you grasp the concepts you can move right on to the higher level papers.

corpsesarefun wrote:
Meh advanced physics books are over rated to be honest, they are good for thought provoking reading but once you grasp the concepts you can move right on to the higher level papers.

Which is why I am teaching myself python and ruby at the moment. Those actually apply to my job. I am also thinking about going back to school since I am one of those works in IT people with no IT degree and I think I have capped off at my current job level. Which by no means is a bad thing, but I feel I could accomplish more. going back to school and getting it done will be a good test. Then I will just have two degrees and only one will be worthless, hopefully, LOL....

*now back on topic*
Evolution is done over millions of years, and we are finding more and more that we share a certain level of common ground in our DNA as with everything else in the planet. Sometimes a it is only a mere 5% similarity, all the way up to primates which is like what, 96%? 99%? One can draw a conclusion that we all stem from the same source, but evolution has taken us down different paths. Sometimes a complete opposite path. The more we find out in science proves that a lot of single cell organisms already carry the building blocks that multiple cell organism have and use.

I mean look at the whale. A complex water living mammal, that shares some traits with us (since we are also mammals) and what we are just now discovering about them is that they may have once been land roaming mammals many many years ago.

I heartily recommend going back to university as a mature student.

You have a much more sensible perspective on things. Despite the extra work on top of normal life, it is entirely possible to take a degree in four years in evening classes.

Crom wrote:

I can use proofs to mathematically prove tons of stuff, that doesn't mean it actually exists. I have purchased some advanced physics books and they are on my shelf. Some Hawkings stuff, some Brian Greene, I sometimes lurk at bad astrology forums, etc. I have a very basic general knowledge of such things but nothing that deep. I just cannot seem to pry myself from science fiction, fiction, and technical manuals to jump into advanced physics books. I also have a small extensive religious text collection as well.

I am trying to teach myself too many work related things at once right now to have any extensive pleasure reading time and since my job requires zero knowledge of physics that is not a high priority at the moment. Though one of these days I am going to sit down and read them all.

Basically it's a solution to the Schroedinger's Cat box paradox.




See, once the cat goes into the box, it enters a state of quantum indeterminacy. Since it's actually impossible for a cat to be both alive and dead, there has to be some way around this.


For a very high end abstraction of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_interpretation

I personally disagree with the many worlds interpretation but we cannot disprove it.

Kilkrazy wrote:I heartily recommend going back to university as a mature student.

You have a much more sensible perspective on things. Despite the extra work on top of normal life, it is entirely possible to take a degree in four years in evening classes.

Yeah long story short, I almost had a job at Google. Got past the 2nd and 3rd interviews. Didn't quite make it to the fourth. Learned that most people don't make it past interview 1 or 2. I have no college degree in what I do and am completely self taught, minus a few training courses (certification boot camps) my employers have paid for. My problem is now finding a college that really teaches what I want to dive into (open source management, development, Unix based OSes, etc) and will allow me to test out of every class I could teach. Sadly they all seem Windows centric, and to be honest, I taught myself Active Directory in about a month with a book, and it wasn't hard. I taught myself how to code in bash, python and perl, and well I don't find that all too hard either.

I think I actually may want to get into IT development since I have 12 years of IT experience now. I think I know what IT professionals need tool wise. I think I want to do it in open source too, but just not really sure what to take. I need to email some deans and figure out how many credits transfer from old college, what I can test out of it, and what course I can take that will teach me what I am looking for and still get me a degree. I just find the Windows server side stuff so easy that I feel like I am wasting my money paying for college for it. Now the Unix and Linux stuff I can see paying for, because I know it, and I have been doing it professionally, but I have no book knowledge and I do think it is a bit more complex. I would like to have that book knowledge and maybe add a few more languages to my resumé (or CV as you Europeans call it) in the process. I would love to learn C, Ojb C, and ruby, which are 3 languages I do not know that well at all.

All of this makes me think if I applied myself more I could accomplish more, and the going back to school is really just a test to see if I can do it. It is not like my current job will fire me for going back to school and I don't plan on quitting while going back to school. Plus by the time I graduate like 15 years experience and a degree isn't too shabby. Some of my work experience is maybe semi-impressive to some.

You should probably look at project management, organisational psychology, human interface design and system architecture rather than just another language or shell script system.

I don't know about the US, but in the UK you can take a degree over evening classes and it takes three nights a week plus time at the weekend for reading and writing.

Kilkrazy wrote:You should probably look at project management, organisational psychology, human interface design and system architecture rather than just another language or shell script system.

I don't know about the US, but in the UK you can take a degree over evening classes and it takes three nights a week plus time at the weekend for reading and writing.

Yeah not sure if I am really into management of people. I have grown quite fond of managing machines. They don't talk back and generally do whatever it is I tell them to do

Yeah they have night degree programs here as well, from all over and from many schools. In fact my friend's sister lives in Las Vegas, and works in the medical field and is going back to get her Masters (grad school) and doing it remotely. Her Grad school is in Missouri and she lives in Nevada. All classes are online but she is required to fly in for finals.

I like problem solving and writing my own code and running machines a lot. I am not sure how I would fare as a project manager with people under me. Everything is negotiable though. I do feel that a lot of developers that write software tools for IT professionals are software developers first and IT/support professionals second. If that makes any sense. I also find all academia software products to be sub par and total crap. If I ever went software developer I would redesign the old and busted monolithic design of academic software and make so the end user actually likes using those sorts of products and the IT staff actually likes supporting them. I love it when someone comes to me with a problem and says this probably cannot be done but can you look at it? Then with a few days I usually have a work around to make it work. Sometimes the work around is absolutely ridiculous, but it works. In some cases I have to say not possible, but give good explanation why.

Sorry for getting so off topic on this.

You'll find that people management always comes in at some point, even if it is managing upwards rather than downwards.

Also, project managers often don't have people under them, they just have responsibility for things.

Kilkrazy wrote:You'll find that people management always comes in at some point, even if it is managing upwards rather than downwards.

Also, project managers often don't have people under them, they just have responsibility for things.

My last job our project manager was just a micro manager, that is all he did. At my job before that our project manager was more an operations guy than anything, and my current job, we don't have any project managers. Though, to be honest sometimes I really wish we did have one to organize how we execute our large projects. Like rolling out 6,000 new machines in a life cycle exchange, or upgrading new servers every so often. Right now we just play it by ear....and it works, but at times I feel it is not as efficient as it could be.

To me project manager just seems like middle management and has pretty much been middle management at my previous jobs. I assume your mileage will vary from company to company though.

Crom wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I heartily recommend going back to university as a mature student.

You have a much more sensible perspective on things. Despite the extra work on top of normal life, it is entirely possible to take a degree in four years in evening classes.

Yeah long story short, I almost had a job at Google. Got past the 2nd and 3rd interviews. Didn't quite make it to the fourth. Learned that most people don't make it past interview 1 or 2. I have no college degree in what I do and am completely self taught, minus a few training courses (certification boot camps) my employers have paid for. My problem is now finding a college that really teaches what I want to dive into (open source management, development, Unix based OSes, etc) and will allow me to test out of every class I could teach. Sadly they all seem Windows centric, and to be honest, I taught myself Active Directory in about a month with a book, and it wasn't hard. I taught myself how to code in bash, python and perl, and well I don't find that all too hard either.

I think I actually may want to get into IT development since I have 12 years of IT experience now. I think I know what IT professionals need tool wise. I think I want to do it in open source too, but just not really sure what to take. I need to email some deans and figure out how many credits transfer from old college, what I can test out of it, and what course I can take that will teach me what I am looking for and still get me a degree. I just find the Windows server side stuff so easy that I feel like I am wasting my money paying for college for it. Now the Unix and Linux stuff I can see paying for, because I know it, and I have been doing it professionally, but I have no book knowledge and I do think it is a bit more complex. I would like to have that book knowledge and maybe add a few more languages to my resumé (or CV as you Europeans call it) in the process. I would love to learn C, Ojb C, and ruby, which are 3 languages I do not know that well at all.

All of this makes me think if I applied myself more I could accomplish more, and the going back to school is really just a test to see if I can do it. It is not like my current job will fire me for going back to school and I don't plan on quitting while going back to school. Plus by the time I graduate like 15 years experience and a degree isn't too shabby. Some of my work experience is maybe semi-impressive to some.

Lehigh Univiersity while i was there in comp sci was Unix Based.... Just saying. But anyways, back on topic?

Rubiksnoob wins the thread

Crom wrote:
OK, well this is going off topic and I admit theoretical physics is not my forte, but where exactly are you getting all this stuff? From my understanding, albeit limited, is that the whole concept of multiple realities and parallel universes is completely theoretical with no empirical evidence supporting such claims.

Oh, absolutely, I'm merely stating that anything that goes beyond claiming that the observed universe must exist is a matter of theory; including any claim that entails the existence of only one universe. Its a minor issue of logic, but its important when you start getting into abstract concepts.

Either way, I'm not in my depth either. My knowledge of physics doesn't extend beyond the using of some of the more interesting modeling techniques in politics.

rubiksnoob wrote:

I'm a bit "fuzzy" right now but this picture isso epic.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

I'm a bit "fuzzy" right now but this picture isso epic.

Nice one Rubiks...I'd say Coconut eating T-Rex is an official meme now.

Orlanth wrote:Are you trying to tell me you cant find evidence of an attempt to generate a connection between atheist claims in the non-existance of God and evolution? Look harder, in fact look at all.
If it were once or twice, but its a major propaganda theme.

What? Your response doesn't make sense to what I said? I acknowledged that atheists try to claim evolution as some kind of proof, and that they're wrong.

Lets take a good long look at this.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

This is heavily quoted by wikipedia wghich appears to be where you are drawing your info from..

You're not actually reading my posts, are you? I mean, I pointed out explicitly that I was taking my definitions from wiki; "Here's wiki to explain it to you". And then you mention that I appear to be getting my info from wiki...

Honestly, are you reading what I'm saying, because I've kind of suspected that you've basically been skimming to get the jist of my point and then responded to that, instead of actually trying to understand what I've been explaining to you. It's really the only possible explanation for what's going on here, because what I've explained isn't complicated, nor is particularly debatable, yet here we are...

This assumes 'evolution' to represent natural selection as a random force. ID here admits to the methodology of evolution in the second sentence but omits random natural selection as the guiding force. This is indistinguishable from guided evolution.

The massive difference between the two is that guided evolution takes the presence of that guiding hand as a matter of faith, intelligent design attempts to prove it, and uses really awful science to do so.

Two people can believe God created the Earth. The one that goes out to find Noah's ark to prove it is very different.

Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.

This assumes 'creationism' to refer to young earth creationism only.

And that quote is, of course, their effort to distance creationism from intelligent design. Something I pointed out to you days ago has been emphatically rejected in a court of law as being grossly disingenuous.

Going back to the wiki article you draw your 'knowledge' from:

Wow. You really should have read my post properly before you decided on that woeful line of attack.

You see ID is a smokescreen made for tactical legal reasons in the US, just as I claimed.

I've been trying to explain that to you... you really haven't been reading anything I've written, have you?

The point being that it is a tactical smokescreen for a particular kind of creationism, the type that believes there is scientific basis for rejecting evolution, the type that attempts to create its own dodgy science to prove its own claims.

This is entirely different to a belief that God set all the processes in play knowing they'd end up as they have.

It is a form of creationism but denies it is such by claiming that only young earth creationism is creationism as an internal definition. This did not work on the US courts who considered ID as to be creationism by legal definition.

Quote from wiki on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.
The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision has sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

Why are you repeating this stuff? This is stuff I was explaining to you days ago.

Your logic is skewed. The two can appear in seperation, hence the consistent use of the word hijacking. Science has been on the curriculum for a long time, adding evolution to science teaching is logical. Atheists can then comes along to hijack it when in place as a platform to 'prove' there is no God. Normally by misadvocating creationism as young earth creationism only and thus 'disproving' the Bible.

But that isn't happening. No atheists are walking into science classes and arguing what should be taught. No atheists are working into school boards to get science textbooks misrepresenting all creationsm and young earth creationism. That's all just stuff you're making up.

Meanwhile there are actual intelligent design advocates on school boards lobbying to 'teach the controversy'.

Nope. The point is that by hijacking evolution atheism can be claimed to be science rather than religion, this is also backed up by the dogma that as atheism has no beleif in the divine it cannot be a religion. This gives atheism a tactic to gain foothold in fora where religion itself is not permitted. In terms of education allowing evolution to be taught without the caveat that evolution makes no comment on the existance or non existance of the divine gives ammo for atheists without opportunity to reply.

Well, atheism isn't a religion. It's certainly a belief, a faith if you will, but it isn't a religion. In the same way that 'I believe in God' isn't a religion, because a religion is so much more than that, in the way that Islam and Christianity are different religions despite both believing in God.

And yes, atheism can try to claim some kind of rational basis. In the same way that religion tries to claim some kind of dominance over morality. They're both utterly wrong.

But that's just what goes on in debates, and they're a free-for-all of groundless opinion. What we're actually talking is what gets taught in science class. And no-one in science class is using evolution to say there is no God and so your claim is entirely baseless.

In communist countries this is exactly what happens, formally. In the US the opposite was initially in place with evoltion being banned from the classroom in 15 states. This was stopped, and eventually reversed because the methodology used to remove ther previous imbalance was to 'remove religion from the classrooms' under the Establishment Clause. It was only later understood that atheism is a form of religion as an of itself, due to the clouded theological definition of atheism a loophole emerges which allows atheism to attach itself to evolution while firmly preventing any counter message in th same fora.

Atheism was never taught in US science classes. You keep insisting on this and it is nonsense.

The solution is not creationism in sceince school, a wide mulit-point theology teaching in schools is recommended for for different reasons , mostly do do with dispelling prejudice via familiarity. All that is required in evolutionary class is the inclusion of the caveat that evolution is not a theological topic and makes no claim either for or against any religious ideology, or similar wording.

So, you mean like I said to you four days ago "At most, because of the invented contraversy, a science teacher should explain that evolution is a study of the natural processes by which animals evolve over time, and that it doesn't in any way address spiritual questions of any nature, and that an understanding of evolution is in no way opposed to religious belief."

It's becoming obvious that if only you'd bothered to read my posts this whole thing wouldn't have been necessary. Well, and if you'd thought a bit more about the 'atheism is getting taught in science class' silliness.

All that is occuring on this subject in the US schools system is due to tactical legal and political posturing, on both sides. This needs to be neutralised, fairly and evenly so that science is taught with a genuine level permit, and be seen to do so.

Who are these atheists doing this posturing? There are two sides in this issue, one side trying to get science classes to 'teach the controversy' by including intelligent design nonsense, and the other side is trying to keep science class teaching actual science.

That's the debate. Those grounds are widely recognised by both sides. Your imagination is impressive but your description of the political conflict is horrible.

Dawkins is an alarmist, but then he has probably seen a wolf. I have sympathy for him, he is on the receiving end of a lot of flak by fanatics who wont let go and so its not truly his fault that he is becoming battle worn. Though he is growing a very perceptible contempt for the religious man which doesn't help him with dealing with those who would like to listen to his opinions from across the room.

Dawkins spends his time attacking religion by picking on it's most intellectually limited believers. Going to some backwater town in Arkansas and making fun of the beliefs of some locals isn't the result of being battle worn, it's because Dawkins likes feeling superior to religious people. Any well educated religious person could just as easily go and find some idiot atheist and make fun of him, and it'd be just as useful.

What actually needs to be done is for consideration and humility to be increased on all sides. Dawkins' approach is the opposite of that. If he actually wanted to use his (impressively high) intellect to encourage debate on this issue, then he should accept some of the debates that have been offered by intellectuals of various faiths, and engage with them in respectful but vigourous debate.

But he doesn't...

Your still overanalylsing this. For example I could be rightfully considered a 'gay Christian', I am not homosexual but a genuinely happy man, most of the time. I don't consider it wise to call myself a gay Christian because the meaning of the word gay has changed, especially in that context, though I might use the word gay in its original form in poetry. I consider myself religious though by definition religion means following the trappings of a faith group rather than to be of faith. In some churches, notably evangelical ones, being called 'religious' is a negative critique of ones spiritual walk and potentially an insult. I think that we need to use the common vernacular and so have no problems being called religious or admitting to being religious.
Fundamental-ism/-ist is a word that has changed, don't concern yourself overly that it doesn't fully make sense, plenty of words used to mean something else.

But fundamentalist hasn't completely changed. It is still frequently used to refer to a movement returning to or focusing on the fundamentals of their faith. At the same time there are scores of words used to mean what the earlier poster most likely meant, 'militant atheist' is common, as is 'fanatical atheist'. If he had meant something like this he simply could have explained that was his intent and changed his meaning.

That's kind of how debate is supposed to work, where a term produced a muddled or unclear definition, you discuss it and come to a clearer understanding of the concept they wish to discuss.

Instead of being 'overthinking' it's exactly how debate is supposed to work.

kind of relevant

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12535647

Horizon: Are We Still Evolving? will be on BBC Two at 2100 on Tuesday 1 March 2011 and afterwards on BBC iPlayer

go go go sky plus/equivalent !

reds8n wrote:kind of relevant

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12535647

Horizon: Are We Still Evolving? will be on BBC Two at 2100 on Tuesday 1 March 2011 and afterwards on BBC iPlayer

go go go sky plus/equivalent !

Our appendix has been gradually reducing in size over the generations so I doubt that we are not evolving. What we need to do is get science in there to speed up the process - splice in some more primate DNA to give us hand-feet, then add in some cat DNA for night vision, some dog DNA for super smell, and some Einstein DNA so that we can finally set the timer on the damn VCR!