On 4/13/2011 11:11 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Also, a significant portion of Christians don't believe in the literal
> interpretation of the Noah's Ark story because of all the problems it would
> present (such as how and why would all members of sibling species travel
> from the Ark's landing point to the other side of the world, crossing vast
> oceans, and without leaving any representatives of their species along the
> way, either by living descendants or fossils).
>
A lot of Christians are not Christians, save that they use the same 
name. Fundies are right about one thing, *most* Christians believe 
almost nothing "in" the Bible, even, in some cases, being willing to 
state that Jesus may not have been divine, but his ideas where sound, so 
they still call themselves Christians.

No, the major fundies latch on to things like "kinds" as a way to avoid 
dealing with the fact that they don't have much of anything else. ID 
uses it, to an extent, but only as a sort of "starting point", from 
which some limited, God driven, evolution took place, which produced all 
the variation. After all, if you only had a few hundred years to turn 
one bird into hundreds of thousands of species, the "genetics" had to be 
guided somehow, or front loaded. I have seen both arguments.

The only thing I am certain of is that after 10 years, the best the 
moron that came up with "ontological depth" for genetics has been the 
excuse that, "its real, even if I can't tell you how the hell to even 
try to define/calculate it!" Right, so.. your entire ID concept is 
predicated on evolution being impossible, based on a non-existent 
equation, to measure something you can't properly define, which you 
can't even give evidence exists in the first place. And you thought Behe 
had problems applying math and logic to the subject...

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:55 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  writes:
>
>> On 12/04/2011 10:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>     Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
>>> frightening...
>>
>> And apparently the results are conclusive:
>>
>> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
>>
>> America is the most religious first-world country, and it also has the
>> highest rates of crime, poor health, etc.
>
> Highest rates of crime? Doubt it. The paper just speaks of homicide. IF
> you look at violent crime where no one dies, other industrialized
> countries are worse off, based on the statistics. I suspect some
> fiddling around with the definition of "violent" is at play, but
> still...
>
> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
> beliefs.
>
There is a lot of playing around with "violent" statistics. Some police 
departments have been caught, if I remember, but never properly 
sanctioned, for finding "inventive" ways of redefining things, so they 
don't seem as bad, or fall into certain negative statistics. Hell, just 
saw the blurb on the Los Vegas paper today, stating that the state might 
pass law that disposed of the requirement to do inquests, in cases of 
officer involved shootings. The cops don't seem to want it, from what 
little I glossed over, but some idiot, some place, is almost certainly 
trying to sweep something under the carpet by doing it. Why else remove 
a requirement that they investigate cause of death, and other matters, 
related to shootings involving an officer?

Mostly though, I seem to remember some irregularity between "self 
presented" testimony about certain sorts of crimes, as reported to the 
press, and those reported to state/national agencies responsible for 
tracking them, in which the self reporting was, inexplicably, more 
honest than the "official" reports. But, I suppose its possible I 
misremember (though, I doubt it).

Post a reply to this message

When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American 
people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?

Refusing to believe that evolution is happening is approximately like 
refusing to believe that the Earth is round. Yes, the Earth doesn't 
*look* very round, and it's intuitively baffling that the people at the 
bottom don't fall off, but the evidence is incontrovertible. Anyone who 
still insists that it's a global conspiracy is obviously a nutjob.

Of course, America has a reputation for being crazy. I even saw an 
advert for Californian peanuts which proclaimed "California has the best 
nuts". But is it actually true? Or is it just a few loonies who make it 
look like it's true?

(I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've 
personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size, 
that's not terribly significant, however...)

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 3:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:18:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> - nobody (at least no scientist) knows 'the chemical origins of life'
>
> Now I didn't actually take high school biology, but I thought there had
> been some progress made in this area - autotrophs create organic
> compounds from inorganic compounds through photosynthesis - and I thought
> I had read a couple of things recently about some advances that had been
> made in understanding photosynthesis and even (maybe) in creating
> something that is capable of photosynthesis.
>
One of the original early experiments was even uncovered, and its sealed 
contents retested, finding a larger number of the precursor organics 
than the original experiment was able to (do to a lack of ability to 
measure small amounts at the time). Never the less, the problem is, we 
don't have something showing a) all of them b) how they would have 
organized to produce necessary forms, or even c) what the most simple 
"functional" organic compound looked like, from which others eventually 
derived. There is this nasty thing called life on this planet, which 
tends to "eat", or degrade, anything that would come at all close to 
those originals. We are not even sure what the conditions really needed 
to be, for how long, what the odds where of the result happening, etc.

Never the less, given that we are even making limited progress in 
producing "synthetic" genetics, which use different chemicals than our 
own, there is no real reason to assume you can't get life from non-life. 
And, it wouldn't help their case anyway, since such life wouldn't have 
needed to "know" how to make every other species on the planet, nor been 
"guided" after it formed, or anything else. Their god would end up being 
the guy that turned on the switch to the bread maker, after loading the 
ingredients. Additional messing with the system being unneeded after 
that. But.. understanding that requires understanding why, and how 
evolution works, and is inevitable, once you have life, and they can't 
even get the "how does it work" bit right.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I think it's more controversial what to do about it. And at least
> there's something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you
> actually read the original source stuff.
>
Yeah. That about sums it up. The controversy is in "what to do", but 
like with every other science wackos don't like, or those seeking to 
simply profit without consequence, failing to absolutely sure about any 
part of it means they can claim you are uncertain about *all* of it, 
given the right spin, a lot of hand waving, plenty of misinformation, 
and a dose of total incomprehension (or refusal to comprehend/accept the 
conclusions). It definitely helps when you can buy think tanks to create 
your misinformation for you too, and those groups have done things in 
the past that "appear" to be positive, and on the up and up.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 11:34 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>>>    - 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes
>>>> close to being a controversy in the scientific field.
>>>
>>> And even then it's not that controversial.  It's a relatively small
>>> percentage of scientists who study climate change who think climate
>>> change isn't happening.
>
>> I think it's more controversial what to do about it.  And at least there's
>> something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you actually
>> read the original source stuff.
>
>    I would even go so far as to say that the controversial thing is not
> what to do about it, but that many people actually oppose the rational
> thing to do. "We should stop polluting our environment and depleting
> natural resources." I don't even understand what rational reason there
> is to oppose that idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing? Even
> if there was no climate change and everything was just and absolutely
> fine, we should *still* reduce pollution.
>
>    Pollution causes harm to humans. That's a fact. The only controversial
> thing in this whole thing is the people who want to continue polluting
> the environment.
>
In the minds of morons like the Koch brothers, it only effects humans 
that can't a) buy cures, b) avoid the result, c) live in air/water/food 
purified housing, and/or d) buy somewhere new to live, when the prior 
place becomes too underwater, poisoned, unbreathable, radioactive, etc. 
In short, it only effects the people that are not wealthy, and powerful, 
and there are too many of them anyway, so a few less wouldn't be a problem.

If you believe that a) pollution will change things in a way that makes 
the world better for you (the Kochroach brothers are among the ones 
saying it will make more places habitable, increase farm production, 
etc., not generate deserts, massive storms, and make some places 
unlivable), or b) it isn't actually dangerous at all, its real easy to 
not want to reduce pollution. If you are among the people most prone to 
be fined *for* polluting it in the first place as well...

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 1:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
> people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>
A very vocal and "powerful" minority, many from old money going clear 
back to the, "my right to take my slaves into a non-slave state and 
still treat them as slaves there is being infringed, so the federal 
government should stop those states from stopping me from doing that!", 
era, all the way up to the present day, "The federal government 
shouldn't prevent states from doing, passing, or making legal/illegal 
anything they want. Hands off my state!", rich, white, old money types 
are responsible for most of this. And, their choice of method to make it 
happen is the same as rich, over privileged, "My rights should be 
paramount above the state!", Romans used to handle the situations: Make 
sure your supporters are too ignorant to realize what is going on, then 
distract them, as much as possible, with non-existent threats, and 
pointless entertainments.

There is hardly any point in being smart, if you are ignorant, your 
history is handed to you by the very people that want to keep you that 
way, and they know your fears, since they created many of them, so well 
that they can simply trot out something for you to fear, every time 
something serious is going on. A good example being the whole Wisconsin 
mess. Do government workers make more than other people? Depends, do you 
mean can they pay their house off faster, buy a boat, buy a car, dress 
in better clothes, buy more expensive food, etc.? Hell no, in that 
respect they make **less** than non-state workers. But... Add in health 
care, fake BS about vacation time, and a few other things that you can't 
use to buy anything, clothe yourself with, or in any way, shape or form 
actually "save money", or be better off than other people, in general, 
and you can claim they make more money.

Distract them with all the "bonuses" they get, which in the end, they a) 
gave up before the new law had even been penned, never mind passed, and 
b) does jack shit to make them better "paid" than other people, and 
idiots like the lady in line at work will stand there and tell you to 
your face, "I think what they are doing to those people is right", 
because somehow its connected to a nonexistent VAT tax that no one will 
*ever* see added in Arizona, so long as its Republican run, or how much 
their milk was today, compared to 40 years ago.

These are not stupid people. They have simply been lied to, so often and 
so persistently, and pushed so often in just the right ways, to convince 
them, that they can't see past their fear of what someone else *says* is 
going on.

The last two times some idiot tried to do with the Teabagger Party is 
trying in Washington, in cutting spending, and rich people's taxes, 
without placing one dime into new jobs, once in the US, and once in 
England (if I remember right), the result was an "increase" in the 
depressions of the time. But, no.. these people are convinced the 
problem is government workers, unions, and someone, other than them, 
actually giving a shit if they get sick, or are starving to death, after 
they retire. Why? Because someone said so, and has told them of all the 
stuff that will be lost (or rather, which they plan to cut, defund 
and/or replace with something worthless), if they don't take a chainsaw 
to the rose bush, instead of pruning shears.

> (I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've
> personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size,
> that's not terribly significant, however...)

Again. Don't confuse stupidity for ignorance and fear.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 9:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:13:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2011 8:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> In that case they can F' off;-P
>>> LOL
>>
>> That's what I meant in the first place. Go forth and multiply. :-D
>
> Nicely played. :P
>
> Jim

It wasn't game play just an old saying.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 10:13, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 1:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
>> people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>>
> A very vocal and "powerful" minority

I see.

> Romans used to handle the situations: Make
> sure your supporters are too ignorant to realize what is going on, then
> distract them, as much as possible, with non-existent threats, and
> pointless entertainments.
>
> There is hardly any point in being smart, if you are ignorant, your
> history is handed to you by the very people that want to keep you that
> way, and they know your fears, since they created many of them

Sounds like America is the least-free country in the free world. o_O

> These are not stupid people. They have simply been lied to, so often and
> so persistently, and pushed so often in just the right ways, to convince
> them, that they can't see past their fear of what someone else *says* is
> going on.

I see. I think...

>> (I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've
>> personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size,
>> that's not terribly significant, however...)
>
> Again. Don't confuse stupidity for ignorance and fear.

Consider the following conversation:

"So what do all these scripts do then?"
"This script reads some data from the database and builds this script 
from it. It then runs this script, which does the real work of backing 
up the database."
"OK. So... this script creates that one?"
"Yes."
"Right. So you mean, like, if I were to just completely delete this 
script, that script would recreate it next time you run it?"
"Yes."
"Hmm, OK. So why do you need that script then if this one gets created 
automatically?"
"Because that script is the one that creates it."
"Right, I see. So I could literally delete this right now and that 
script would recreate it?"
"Yes."
"OK, got it. So why don't you just rerun this script each time? Why do 
you have to recreate it?"
"Because the structure of the database could change, but mainly because 
it copies the files into a folder with today's date on it."
"Right, cool. So, do you really need to have two scripts?"
[Repeat this exact conversation 6 or 7 times before the guy finally 
gives up trying to understand and asks me about something else.]

Now if this was some random dude on the street, that would be fine. But 
it wasn't. It was the Senier Director of IT for the entire corporation. 
In other words, the guy in charge of all our IT.

The fact that the Director of IT himself considers it necessary to 
personally understand how a minor piece of scripting works is either

- taking an interest in employee talents
- a reflection of the small size of our IT department
- micromanagement / empire-building

depending on your point of view. But the complete inability of the man 
to comprehend a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT even after having me explain it six 
different ways cannot be regarded as a good thing from any perspective.

The other Americans I've worked with have all been similarly dense. 
Perhaps this is a reflection not of America, but of upper management. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Sounds like America is the least-free country in the free world. o_O

  OTOH in other aspects the USA has a stronger concept of freedom than many
other western countries.

  For example, you can burn a bible or a koran, make a video of it, and post
it on youtube, with complete impunity. You might get some people angry, but
you won't get prosecuted. It falls under freedom of expression.

  Do that here, and you *will* get jailtime (up to several years). That's
not even a hypothetical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message