Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Should evolution be taught in our schools?
No, it should never be taught 20%
Yes, but only in college 9%
Yes, in high school, but only with a parental waiver 4%
Yes, in high school 7%
Yes, before high school 58%

Votes: 96

 We Need Creationism In Our Schools

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 22, 2002
 Comments:
One of the hottest and most volatile topics in public education today is the theory of biological evolution, and a constant debate is raging about whether or not it ought to be taught in American classrooms. On one side of the debate you'll find professional biologists who point to a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of evolutionary common descent. On the other side you'll find religious fundamentalists who point to time-honored Scriptures and holes in biology's current understanding of evolution. In between, you'll find lots of moderate folks who find no conflict at all between religious tradition and modern science, but they are not nearly controversial enough for Adequacy.org.

I have weighed all of the evidence, examined all of the arguments, and pored over all of the statistics. All of this leads me to believe that there can be only one acceptable solution to this controversy: We need creationism in our schools.

science

More stories about Science
Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.
Eugenics: The choice for a superior generation
Knowledge Containment: A Tradition Under Attack
Caffeinated Mints: A Comparative Review
Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
The Treason of Creationism
We need more toxins
New medical study: Microsoft products better for your health
Which is the best way to predict the future ?
Debunking the Holocaust Hoax
Amateur Psychology
Humans: Murderous Freaks of Nature?

More stories by
gbd

On the Establishment of a Palestinian State
The Evil of Harry Potter
Please Don't Kill Osama Bin Laden
Review: Saint Luke's Christmas Eve Candlelight Service
Looking Forward: Cinema in 2002
Full Frontal Rudity
America is Better than God
Now, before I get any further, allow me to make a couple of observations.

  • I am aware that the theory of biological evolution, and the twin-nested hierarchy of evolutionary common descent that is a logical result of said theory, is probably 100% true.
  • I am also aware that the Biblical creation story is basically bullshit.
  • Nevertheless, I maintain that schools need to teach Biblical Creationism.
At this point, you may be asking yourself, "What in the hell is George talking about?" After all, the idea that we should teach our children something which we know to be incorrect is very controversial. I am aware of this. However, my six decades on this rock that we call Earth have also taught me another important lesson: Sometimes the end justifies the means. You may contend that the classroom is no place to conduct a Machiavellian experiment of this kind, but I would counter by saying that the newspaper headlines prove you wrong.

Allow me to expand on this a little bit. Think back to when you were a child. When Christmas rolled around, how many of you honestly believed that a fat man in a red suit would squeeze his ass down your chimney and shower you with gifts .. provided that you had behaved well over the course of the previous year? Come on, let's see a show of hands. Is your hand up? Mine is. And how many of you made a conscious effort to behave well in an attempt to maximize your gift-receiving potential? Again, I find that my hand is up. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Sometimes truth can be irrelevant when the final result is a desired set of behaviors. Sure, we all now know that there is no such thing as Santa Claus, but didn't this belief help keep us on the "straight and narrow" during those formative years when we were most susceptible to misbehavior and general naughtiness? I would submit that the answer to this question is a resounding "yes", and I believe that we can formulate a more general principle from this: There is nothing wrong with lying to children so long as it keeps them docile. There can be little doubt that biological evolution is true, but the fact of the matter remains that most junior high and high school-aged children are ill-equipped to deal with its ramifications.

Fine. The solution is obvious.

Teach them creationism.

Now, I am fully aware of the standard criticisms to this idea. Yes, I concede that it probably violates the First Amendment. Yes, it probably tramples on the rights of non-Christian children. And yes, there's that whole issue about none of it being true. However, I am a "results-oriented" person, and I am willing to dismiss these problems as long as we can clean up some of the behavior in our schools. Our children are shooting and screwing each other at unprecedented levels, and if a belief in a 6,000 year-old Universe and a vengeful Creator can help turn these statistics around, then I'm all for it. Evolution was not taught in classrooms in the year 1800, and I can guarantee you that there were no violent incidents involving mass-shootings or body piercings or Marilyn Manson. Who cares if it's wrong? We can still teach it, can't we?

There is, I think, a scientific precedent to this as well. Almost all high school physics students are required to learn Newton's three "laws" of gravitation. These "laws" are presented as Absolute Truth, and many former students can still recite them from memory. However, we have known since the beginning of the 20th Century that these "laws" are nothing of the kind; Einstein's theory of general relativity is not at all compatible with Newton's "laws", and relativity has been experimentally demonstrated to be correct on numerous occasions. Newton's "laws" break down at large-scale levels (for instance, Newtonian mechanics cannot be used to accurately describe the orbit of the planet Mercury.) Relativity, on the other hand, is consistent and measurably correct on virtually all levels, with the possible exception of situations involving extreme mass and energy where quantum effects can no longer be ignored.

Newton's defenders say "well, okay .. perhaps Newtonian mechanics is not universally correct, but it works very well for situations here on Earth, and in that context it is very accurate." That is all well and good, but the fact remains that Newton was wrong, but physics instructors teach his "laws" anyway. And they are 100% justified in doing so. There is no way in hell that we should expect high school students to be able to understand the ramifications of general relativity. It's weird, wacky, and difficult stuff. Why can't we do the same thing with creationism? Why should we expect these impressionable children to be able to deal with the cold reality that is biological evolution?

So does this mean that we shouldn't teach evolution at all? Of course not; evolution should be part of the standard curriculum at every college in this nation. But my point is that by the time that children go off to college, they are (by and large) mentally ready to handle the theory. They are 18 years old, they are living on their own, and for the first time in their lives, they find themselves in a position of real responsibility. They learn that the world is a bit different than their sheltered illusions have led them to believe, and they grow up quickly. Then (and only then) are they prepared to accept the reality .. so let's wait until then to give it to them.

Of course, you might point out that not all children end up going to college. This is true, but of what use is biology to people who pump gas or dig ditches? These people are inherently ill-prepared to deal with the truth, and they have about as much use for biological evolution as a cat has for pajamas. Here again, society benefits from allowing these folks to have their delusions. When my wife and I go to eat at our favorite restaurant, it makes little difference to me if the guy who parks my car thinks that the Universe is 6,000 years old. So long as my car doesn't get any scratches, I'm not bothered.

As far as the rest of our children are concerned, evolution can wait. Let's hold the theory back until they're ready for it, and in the meantime let's teach them whatever it takes to keep them from killing each other. More now than at any time in our history, we need creationism in our schools. You can disagree with me, but only if you are a certified lunatic that ignores the nightly news. There are times that we have to recognize that the truth is not the most important virtue, and I would submit to you that we are living in one of those times.

       
Tweet

Excellent Article (3.20 / 5) (#2)
by westgeof on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 02:32:17 PM PST
This was definately not what I expected, but it makes perfect sense. I also believe that pure creationism is pure crap, regardless of whether or not evolution is valid. Perhaps there was a creator, who created the laws of the universe and let things run from there. (The Genesis myth simply being a dumbed down version of what really happened. After all, people did not have much of a grasp on universal mechanics back then...)

However, I've always admired the ideals and morals behind most religions, even while hating to the core any form of organized religion. I don't exactly feel that we should perpetuate this type of religion, but perhaps a compromie would truley be the best thing for our children. Present the idea of religion and faith as something not fully understood. i.e., we know that there is a God of some kind, and that we will be rewarded/punished in some way for our actions while alive. It keeps them under control, without forcing them into any particular doctrine until they are old enough to make a choice for themselves. Upon attending college and learning the truth, they will have the choice to stick with their religion, abandon it entirely, or look for some kind of compromise, usually through agnosticism.


As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

so... (none / 0) (#45)
by nathan on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 04:53:15 PM PST
You want religion without organization? How is that different from religion without standards?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Standards (none / 0) (#57)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 10:36:36 AM PST
You want religion without organization? How is that different from religion without standards?

Does religion need standards? If so, why? Who will oversee them, who will be the Religious Standards Organization?

Vatican? Or maybe IEEE?

Join our church! Best-quality religion! We are ISO-9000 certified!


 
What is "religion without standards" (none / 0) (#118)
by JoePain on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 06:19:36 AM PST
Are you inferring this means that if left alone an individual cannot create his/her own moral judgments?

I think what he was saying is that it would be left up to the individual to find his/her own spirituality. Is this tough to understand?


Liberalism is not spiritual. (none / 0) (#120)
by tkatchev on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 06:53:20 AM PST
Spirituality is meaningless if it is only based on your own personal preferences and biases.

Spirituality should be something above human material nature, don't you think? Or are you that particular strain of liberalist that thinks that sprituality should only be allowed to exist insofar as it is a useful tool to keep the cattle in line?


--
Peace and much love...




I do not think that word means what you think.. (none / 0) (#129)
by JoePain on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 04:29:13 PM PST
it means.

From dictionary.com the definition of liberalism (liberalist being one who practices liberalism)

Definition 3
An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

Are you a liberalist?


snort (none / 0) (#130)
by nathan on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 07:49:22 AM PST
Listen, why do you turn to a dictionary when what you need is an argument? You're just making yourself look like an ass.

Nathan

PS - Definition 3 implies you left two (relevant) ones out, dumbass.
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

actually none of them fit (none / 0) (#132)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 11:51:24 AM PST
That one was just the funniest.

lib·er·al·ism Pronunciation Key (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
Liberalism
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.




noisy signal (none / 0) (#133)
by nathan on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 12:34:20 PM PST
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

This definition is fine, for propaganda. It could easily be restated, from my point of view, as the following:

"A political and philosophical theory founded on the false idea of the unsinfulness of the human condition; on the dispersal of the state's authority amongst the rabble; favouring chaos in the press, criminal-positive justice, the brutalization of the lower classes by the pseudo-educated middle and the wealthy rich, and protection from arbitrary authority so long as the superior and the poor conform completely to the norms of the booboisie, at least in public."

Next time don't assume what you intend to prove.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

This is all well and good (none / 0) (#149)
by JoePain on Wed Mar 6th, 2002 at 07:36:03 AM PST
If you chose to redefine words as you please, so be it. Just remember that you are being ambiguous. fa la to de ib ne auch.


stuff and nonsense. (none / 0) (#150)
by nathan on Wed Mar 6th, 2002 at 10:29:00 AM PST
Your definition is propagandistic. Working from it will lead to a slanted conclusion.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Well... (none / 0) (#158)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 9th, 2002 at 09:20:29 PM PST
You appear to be an idiot.


oh, I am so dreadfully sorry! (nt) (none / 0) (#159)
by nathan on Sun Mar 10th, 2002 at 01:24:03 PM PST

--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Typical. (none / 0) (#138)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 12:00:33 PM PST
Typical liberalist mentality -- "it's true because it's in the dictionary, and it's in the dictionary because it is true."

Would it help if I used a different word that is less confusing for you?

Besides, just because the word "liberalism" is confusing for Americans doesn't mean that it is ambigious for other cultures.


--
Peace and much love...




 
I know you tkatchev! (none / 0) (#131)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 11:46:23 AM PST
Your one of those pesky little 'ambiguous trolls'. (They never come out and really say anything, just make ambiguous replies to other peoples comments in an attempt to sound profound.)


Hmmm... (none / 0) (#137)
by hauntedattics on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 11:57:50 AM PST
Sometimes tkatchev can be ambiguous, but I don't see how you can interpret

Spirituality is meaningless if it is only based on your own personal preferences and biases.

as an ambiguous comment. It's pretty straightforward to me.




it's a good bet (none / 0) (#155)
by innominate on Fri Mar 8th, 2002 at 11:17:34 AM PST
"(They never come out and really say anything, just make ambiguous replies to other peoples comments in an attempt to sound profound.)"

This indicates that the person that posted this, aside from being an unregistered anonymous troll themselves, probably says ambiguous things to everyone they know on a regular basis, trying to sound profound.
Isn't it funny how what we do to others is so easily pointed out on them? (takes on to know one)


Yes. (none / 0) (#157)
by hauntedattics on Sat Mar 9th, 2002 at 08:09:08 PM PST
The things that piss me off in others are either the same as the things I hate in myself, or else uncomfortably close. I make an effort to catch my own hypocrisies, but often fail.

Pride is such a crafty mofo, ain't it?



 
it's tough for me (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by nathan on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 11:02:54 AM PST
(Because I am a Goddist idiot.) But let me try to understand anyway.

Mr Westgeof says that we should teach kids that, while we don't really know anything, we have some vague ideas about God and stuff, and it'll keep the little bastards in line until they're old enough to know better; at which juncture they'll decide that religion is mostly bull, but maybe there's some sort of vacuous spirituality they should think about now and then (preferably stoned out of their gourds,) and get on with their lives.

I guess this kind of religion is a lot easier to stomach than the kind where you have to change your life, or do things for other people that contravene your material self-interest. That's probably also why it's sucky, wimpy, inane, moronic, and contemptible.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Fuck Christianity (4.00 / 1) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 02:45:52 PM PST
We need Scientology taught in our shcools. That'll keep the little bastards in line.


screw scientology (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 03:33:56 PM PST
we need to teach patriotism in our schools. That'll keep the ululating camel fuckers in line.

Who cares if it's wrong? We can still teach it, can't we?

See what I mean?


 
Apparently .. (2.50 / 4) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 06:44:59 PM PST
We need Scientology taught in our shcools.

Apparently we need to teach spelling as well.


 
sign a... (none / 0) (#152)
by innominate on Thu Mar 7th, 2002 at 02:21:54 PM PST
you mean, have all those children sign a 1 billion year contract, something they won't have any 'real' understanding of at that age, then beat into them that knowing by looking is the best and only way to go? You're as fucked as the theory behind the NEW Scientology church. Hubbard got out just in time; he didn't get to see his creation altered by ignorant power hungry squirrels bent on conquest. Sounds like Marcabia to me.
When you grow past the 'knowing by looking' stage, and find that you feel there is something more, go search the FreeZone for something that expands you, not something that 1.1's you down like Scientology.


 
The dangers of Evolutionism (none / 0) (#4)
by moriveth on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 03:04:49 PM PST
While I find myself largely in sympathy with your viewpoint, I feel your proposal does not go quite far enough in addressing the evolutionary peril.

As you correctly point out, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But while a few believers eventually manage to reconcile their faith in God with their knowledge of Science, the doctrine of evolution has proven to be one of the most fertile grounds for planting the seeds of Atheism in childrens' hearts. And one need only glance at the historical record of Soviet Russia or Maoist China or Pol Pot's Cambodia to realize the peril of an atheist society. From all historical evidence, the cold, inhuman worldview of atheism leads unbelievers to substitude murderous ideologies such as Communism for religious worship. Millions of murdered souls attest that this is no trivial danger.

While my ideal solution is similar to yours, you fatally overestimate the maturity of the average 18-year-old college freshman, often an Ayn Rand acolyte or even a radical socialist. Exposed to evolutionary teachings, many of these children will question the existence of God--an act in conflict with the need for a civil society.

Plato noted the utility of myths, such as religion, in shaping society; the laborers and soldiers could be led to correct behavior through the force of religion, while the elite Philosopher-Kings could construct the myths and protect the masses from harmful realities through judicious censorship.

Creationism is one such myth--a myth that can save the proletariat from violent revolution thorugh the powerfully human force of religion. Consequently, evolution must be completely replaced by Creationism in high school curricula. At the collegiate level, only those students showing sufficiently high aptitude to become the new wardens of society (for example, those attending top 10 universities) need be instructed in the reality of evolution; other may be taught the truth when necessary to provide a sufficient workforce for the biotechnology industry and related fields. To extend the teaching of evolutionary truth further would endanger the future of our society to the forces of Godless atheism.


The sound of laughter at previous comment... (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 10:47:35 AM PST
Creationism is one such myth--a myth that can save the proletariat from violent revolution thorugh the powerfully human force of religion. Consequently, evolution must be completely replaced by Creationism in high school curricula. At the collegiate level, only those students showing sufficiently high aptitude to become the new wardens of society (for example, those attending top 10 universities) need be instructed in the reality of evolution; other may be taught the truth when necessary to provide a sufficient workforce for the biotechnology industry and related fields. To extend the teaching of evolutionary truth further would endanger the future of our society to the forces of Godless atheism.

I have to sake your hand on this one. That type of comment gives authors like Ayn Rand fodder for their works. Any society that works by denying things to the public 'for their own good' usually backfires. Denying information and liberties is an insult, and once you get a proletariat that sees through it, it will crumble. And it WILL happen.

Human civilizations resist against any force that attempts to make it static. The only way to move forward is to make changes: to ideas, beliefs, theories, notions, social attitudes/etc. If we continue to push old notions that some just won't accept, we endanger the REPUTATION of that notion, and even fewer people will follow it.

Sure we need a way to 'keep people in line', but we shouldn't be doing it in a totalitarian manner such as this. There are ways to help behavior and politeness without forcing some other person's morals on the child that the child's parents don't agree with.


 
Hitler was a godfearing man (1.00 / 1) (#141)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 12:49:56 PM PST
these arguments are ridiculous. and you could easily come up with counterexamples where people following the "peaceful" doctrines of christian faith have disregarded other peoples humanity, endangered civilization and the future of *our* society.

maybe you should learn to think for yourself, then you could also figure out for yourself why jesus could be considered a savior.

i think you should take some responsiblity for your opinions.


 
ah... (2.00 / 3) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 04:27:54 PM PST
so basically what you're saying is that we should delude the population in order to maintain some status quo (one which, I might add, you opinionatedly feel is `best')

sounds fair if you're willing to compromise your own principles to accomplish this (which obviously you are not, since you feel it's perfectly fine to lie to children- it would not surprise me if you were a compulsive liar)

the `facts' presented in creationism have their place, but only where they have yet to be rebutted (there are very few points creationists have made that are refutable scientifically)


 
Do we ? (3.00 / 2) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 05:25:09 PM PST
I'll agree with that when the church will teach evolutionism.


So you admit it!! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 01:40:02 AM PST
Does that mean that our public schools are really temples to liberalism?


--
Peace and much love...




Admit what ? (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 02:29:21 AM PST
That just means that anything religious should stop at the school's door. Unless they study religion in the said school, in which case they should study Bhâgavad Gita, Zarathoustra and others, as the Genesis.
The public school got to be totally neutral: no religion at all, or all religions.


Don't backtrack. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 03:35:14 AM PST
Your original message clearly and unambigiously stated that public schools are none other than temples to liberalism.

Don't try to backtrack now and cover your tracks with your liberalist mumbo-jumbo mantras.


--
Peace and much love...




Let's be clear (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 04:02:44 AM PST
I must have not stated anything clearly and unambigiously since you needed to ask.

So to make it clear and unambigious:
I will agree with Creationism at school the day they will teach Evolutionism in churches.

What is a liberalist? I haven't the slightest idea.


OK. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 06:20:20 AM PST
Let's use the liberalist's logic against himself:

  1. A church is an organization that promotes and supports the religion of Christianity.
  2. Creationism is an article of faith held by Christians.
  3. You say that if schools are forced to teach creationism, then by analogy, churches should teach evolution.
  4. By which I conclude:
    1. A public school is an organization that promotes and supports the religion of liberalism.
    2. Evolution is an article of faith held by liberalists.


I'm glad you agree me with now.

P.S. For more info on liberalism:

First link. Second link.


--
Peace and much love...




Interesting (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 08:35:51 AM PST
I followed your links. Tried to understand. I think it would be easier to define what is not a liberalist. But, as far as I am concerned, you enlightened me. I quote :
If you are a terminal liberalist, you will find nothing but headache and frustration on these pages; remember, this was not written for you! These pages were written for those who understand.
I must be a terminal liberalist. And that is confirmed by the fact that I don't even understand what it is. No problem with that.

Worse. I failed to see the logic in your example of liberalist's logic. So I came logically (you won't contest that liberalist's logic) to the conclusion that I am not only a terminal liberalist, but a dumb terminal liberalist. I have no problem with that either.


it's a simple, simple analogy (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by nathan on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 08:57:08 AM PST
I'm amazed you can't follow it. You must be some kind of illiterate moron.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Hey, I have been enlightened, not illuminated! (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 12:30:24 PM PST
Why are you amazed? All the thread leads logically to the conclusion that I am a Dumb Terminal Liberalist. So, no surprise if I find his conclusions look more like conditions.

Am I some kind of illiterate moron? Not clever enough to know. This last post will undoubtedly open your eyes. Adios.


dont be a sniper for liberalism (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 01:05:12 PM PST
Evading controversy is not an adequate way to live your life.

Adios.

No, stay. Everyone worth being taught the Truth eventually recovers from Adequacy's initiation ceremony. When you eventually learn see things our way, your penis will grow two inches, your nagging wife will finally desert you, and your dog will come back.

Blue skies, all the way.


Yes but (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 12:21:19 PM PST
if you recover too well and start handing out ass-kickings on Adequacy's own terms, your comments get deleted or zero-rated.

Adequacy is fine for those who are merely Adequate, but but it does not take kindly to the More Than Adequate.


Actually, (none / 0) (#64)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 12:37:43 PM PST
...no. You are confusing adequateness and just plain old rude idiocy.


--
Peace and much love...




Interesting. (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 01:21:29 PM PST
As opposed to the special kind of rude idiocy that is Adequacy?


 
so long, pal (none / 0) (#40)
by nathan on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 02:37:41 PM PST
What kind of person objects when he's called on having acted deliberately obtuse?

Watch this space for the forthcoming reply.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Someone (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 03:12:43 PM PST
Really obtuse?


 
Some (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 03:22:33 PM PST
Illiterate moron?


 
Yesh. (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 10:04:53 AM PST
I agree. I read that web page, and had no idea what the hell the point was.

I saw an FAQ, and nothing else. Content anyone???


Wait for it. (none / 0) (#28)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 10:31:37 AM PST
The content will be there once the bank transfer for the secondary DNS system goes through.

What you see on the site is just a rought draft of the content publishing system.

P.S. It's quite neat, actually; I completely avoided any server-side scripting tools, everything is generated statically through a fancy XML parsing engine. This means that you will be able to download content as a set of representation-independent XML files.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Definition (none / 0) (#85)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 02:33:12 AM PST
I think it would be easier to define what is not a liberalist.

Tkatchev is not a liberalist.

That is all.
An unreformed Aristotlean


 
Illogic (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 01:34:03 PM PST
Assertion number 2 does not follow from the original comment. It is something added by you to bolster your strawman.

Try again.

By the way, which strain of Liberalism are you talking about - the political Liberalism derived from Locke and Hobbes, the economic derived from J. S. Mill, or the philosophical Liberalism of Kant and John Rauls?

Maybe it's time for a diary entry on the subject.


You are wrong. (none / 0) (#69)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 02:06:48 PM PST
What are you talking about? Everything is perfectly logical. (Note that I didn't say that it was true; I merely said that it was logical. Bonus points if you are a liberalist who understands the difference.)

P.S. I won't comment on your name-dropping; rather, you should read the FAQ on my site. The basic tenets of liberalism are explained there.


--
Peace and much love...




FAQ (none / 0) (#70)
by jvance on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 02:18:23 PM PST
No, your FAQ only points out that either you are purposefully misrepresenting Liberalism, or you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand it. Either way your arguments have become tiresome.

But thanks for playing.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Wow you are smart. (none / 0) (#80)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 09:47:24 PM PST
No, really.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Hi, The Dumb Terminal Libealist is back! (none / 0) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 04:43:35 AM PST
First, I must apologize for having left the assembly that way, but:
1 - I was tired, mainly because of 4.
2 - I was unabled to express clearly my thought, because of 1, and 4.
3 - I was discouraged, because of 2.
4 - Nathan is right, I am somewhat illiterate, at least in English, which is not my native language, and sometimes that makes things a little difficult for me.

Now on the topic. Why can't I follow his logic?
I don't think it is illogic, I think it is flawed (or may be I am flawed). Logic works when you have assertions based on commonly accepted notions leading to uncontestable conclusion. In this case, we have 2 acceptable assertions (I, personally, would have defined church differently), 2 conclusions derived from an acceptable analogy (if "One eye for one eye" is an analogy, then this is an analogy too).

The 2 conclusions are contestable, because we are not anymore on the ground of common notions or definitions. These conclusions are based on the personal vision of tkatchev, the definition of liberalism is tkatchev's definition. For most people here a liberalist is someone who doesn't agree with tkatchev. It may make me a moron, but I don't understand it, and I know I am in very good company. Among those who seem to understand, there is contestation. We don't know what is that liberalism, we don't know the religion of liberalism. The second conclusion is a pure assertion, and a very contestable one (science has no article of faith, unless it is proven without holes, and it is not the case with Evolution: that's why it's a theory).

Let's have some fun with logic:
1 - Evolutionism is a scientific theory.
2 - They teach Evolutionism in public schools.
3 - They teach one or more scientific theories in public schools.

1b - Creationism is a religious article of faith.
2b - They teach Creationism in church.
3b - They teach one or more religious article of faith in church.

They should teach Creationism in public schools

Hence Creationism must be a scientific theory, or public schools are churches.

Damnit, must go to work. Bye.


 
It sounds like (none / 0) (#71)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 02:54:19 PM PST
that definition is just a bunch of shit you made up. For a more objective explanation of what liberalism is (not written by anyone affiliated with adequacy.org), try either of these links:And, of course, a definition from dictionary.com.


Uh. (none / 0) (#82)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 09:50:12 PM PST
"Liberalist" != "Liberal".

Anyone who is using "liberalist" to mean "liberal" is an uncultured slob.


--
Peace and much love...




"Liberalist" != "Liberal" (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 07:21:24 AM PST
The Webster Dictionnary is an "uncultured slob".


Yes It Is (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by jvance on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 10:09:02 AM PST
It's worse than that for trying to hijack the good name of Noah Webster. Try the real one, <a href="http://www.m-w.com">Merrian-Webster</a>, or if you have it, the OED.
<p>
If nothing else, this discussion has got me reading philosophy again, which is a good thing. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was just a filthy Liberalist? Read the Declaration of Independence and you'll see what I mean!
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

No kidding. (none / 0) (#91)
by tkatchev on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 10:13:53 AM PST
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was just a filthy Liberalist?

You mean you just found out? I thought it was common knowledge.

Then again, unlike most Americans, I don't have an irrational worship of the "founding fathers".


--
Peace and much love...




 
Well! (none / 0) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 11:02:23 AM PST
Merriam-Webster is an "uncultured slob". UN too.


 
What did you see in that poster's comments (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 12:57:25 PM PST
that led you to the conclusion that he thinks that public schools are "temples to liberalism"? Just because they teach evolution there? Is that it?


Steps to success: (none / 0) (#67)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 01:24:45 PM PST
  1. Read posts you are replying to.
  2. Learn to read.
  3. Acquire a brain.


Buh-bye, I look forward to debating with you again in the future.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Creationism is not a complete answer (3.00 / 2) (#9)
by ism on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 10:39:03 PM PST
Catholicism is. The idea of a vengeful God is clearly a Judaic view, and this has been corrected by the Church during Vatican II. God is a loving being, in fact, I will posit that God is Love itself. Lest I appear to be an apologist, I will affirm my belief in the doctrine set forth in the Dominus Iesus; Christianity is the one true religion, the the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church within that religion. Feeding children incongruous ideas from false religions (including Protestantism) will only lead to a path of no salvation.

To clarify my last statement, my proposal is not just an answer for the afterlife but for the earthly life. Children given a Catholic education are well-prepared for the world. Take a quick look at the Catechism, and you can see that it offers discourse not just on matters of faith, but on economics, political science (para. 2234-2257), even mass media. It's an all-encompassing guide to life.

Instituting this policy is certainly more problematic than the one you propose. Separation of religion and state will be hollered. However, this may soon be alleviated depending on how the Supreme Court votes on the issue currently before them regarding school vouchers. We may not be able to guide those left behind in public schools, but we can certainly provide the best education to those who decide to go to private schools.


umm (3.00 / 2) (#24)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 09:09:42 AM PST
"God is a loving being, in fact, I will posit that God is Love itself"

What? did God himself tell you that?
and if the answer is yes - God being almighty is capable of lying right?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Re: umm (none / 0) (#73)
by Plan571 on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 06:08:21 PM PST
>God being almighty is capable of lying right?


Actually, that is a contradiction. God is all perfection, and lying would indicate weakness therefore He does not lie. God does not and will not lie or deceive us in any way.


God always tells the truth (none / 0) (#84)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 01:04:56 AM PST
...or so he assures you. ;)


 
Wow, and only 2000 years to figure this out! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 09:43:17 AM PST
>Catholicism is. The idea of a vengeful God is >clearly a Judaic view, and this has been >corrected by the Church during Vatican II. God >is a loving being, in fact, I will posit that >God is Love itself. Lest I appear to be an >apologist, I will affirm my belief in the >doctrine set forth in the Dominus Iesus; >Christianity is the one true religion, the the >Roman Catholic Church is the one true church >within that religion. Feeding children >incongruous ideas from false religions >(including Protestantism) will only lead to a >path of no salvation.

What a funny thing! After nearly 2000 years of The Holy Inquisition, The Crusades, Indulgences, using confessions to blackmail everyone, and other unspeakable evils that I'm too lazy to list- the Catholic Church does a 180?

You expect me to believe that one little council can undo that history???

Let's face it pal, Constantine brought Christianity as a religion of >WAR< to the Roman Empire. It seems just plain ludicrous for me to be expected to believe that this institution which has been one of the world's great causes of war, death, and oppression is now the religion of love?

On another hand, where do you get your acid? It must be great shit.



miniluv (none / 0) (#123)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 10:17:19 AM PST
It seems just plain ludicrous for me to be expected to believe that this institution which has been one of the world's great causes of war, death, and oppression is now the religion of love?

That's Ministry of Love, to you, Mr.!


Actually, (none / 0) (#139)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 12:03:35 PM PST
Ministries (and totalitarian governments) are both purely liberalist inventions.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by derek3000 on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 06:34:51 AM PST
God is a loving being, in fact, I will posit that God is Love itself.

Do you always quote someone without giving them credit?




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
But . . . (none / 0) (#153)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 7th, 2002 at 07:29:30 PM PST
What about the New Testament? He acted a bit of an ass there. And Job. I mean, it's cool that he tested Job, but he first KILLED HIS EVEN MORE INNOCENT CHILDREN, WIFE, SERVANTS.

Or you could just say that the New/Old Testaments don't count. In which case I would wholeheartedly agree, despite being an atheist and all.


 
Religion has failed to teach people morality. (2.50 / 2) (#11)
by Mack on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 11:56:32 PM PST
Religion often does force much needed limits on people's behaviours. Christianity tells people not to kill, steal, etc.

But People always look for something in their holy scripture to support some unethical act. I have seen here on adequacy.org and other Chrisian related material: people bashing homosexuals calling them sinners, Supporting racism, supporting abuse of animals, and even denying people's basic human right to masturbation.

No I don't think religion is a good idea when it comes to regulating human behaviour.


 
One point... (none / 0) (#12)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 01:32:31 AM PST
...there is no "theory of evolution" as such.

The problem is that we have evolutionary theories, but these theories are completely unrelated to biology.

The theory of evolution is a purely mathematical construct that is not at all confirmed by real-world data.

Basically, it's a good mathematical construct, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with real-world speciation. Biologists know this full-well; in fact, the current biological thought is diametrically different from Darwinian evoltuion that is taught in school. It's still an evolutionary theory, but it is not at all Darwinian in nature.

"Evolution", the way scientifically-illiterate laymen understand it is nothing but another pointless tenet of the liberalist faith.

I'm not saying that "creationism" is correct (it clearly isn't) but Darwinian evolution is just as idiotic as the six-day creation story.


--
Peace and much love...




So where do you stand then? (none / 0) (#17)
by Ben Reid on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 04:56:40 AM PST
Firstly, I'll rehash the obvious to see what options we have.

There are only two major theories, both diametrically opposed, that attempt to explain the cosmos as we know it today:

1) The theory of creation
2) The theory of evolution

Both bring certain assumptions to table (which I won't list here).

The theory of evolution has many variants in certain areas, for example common descent or multiple descent, however the theory of creation is generally the same -- a common difference in opinion being old earth vs new earth.

From the evolutionist perspective, there are >15 theories (from memory) on how the cosmos originated, none of which fit the data we have today. The most popular one still seems to be the big bang theory.

From the creationist perspective, the beginning of the cosmos is explained by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator.

So pray tell, given the above, if you believe in neither the theory of evolution or creation, then what do you believe?? And why exactly to you believe that 6 day creation story is idiotic (remembering that the 6 days may not be literal days but 6 periods of time)?


explain the cosmos? (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 05:59:12 AM PST
the very worst thing about evolution is the ignorant hordes who have certified it as an explanation for the cosmos. It isnt.

There are only two major theories, both diametrically opposed, that attempt to explain the cosmos as we know it today:

Yeah, so? Does that make one them right? What is the basis for this conceit that presumes to know reality on the basis of ideas? The ancient greeks had ideas, too. Here is the history of two ideas: Mass appears to attract mass and all life appears interrelated; and just as Newton's theory of gravity was proved "wrong" and replaced, evolution will find a similiar intellectual fate.

The most popular one still seems to be the big bang theory.

Bah, every single cosmological theory without exception amounts to mathematical wanking. They're all impressive intellectual accomplishments which should be pursued for their own sake, but they're gibberish nevertheless.


Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 06:26:48 AM PST
You are completely correct.

Also, any so-called "evolutionist" should realize that evolution, as a theory, does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe.

EVOLUTION IS STRICTLY A THEORY OF WHERE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF ANIMALS COME FROM.

I suggest that any liberalist read the above phrase again. And again. And again. And again.

When you feel that you are comfortable with it, you may partake in the discussion.

Until then, please keep your uninformed, dogmatic opinion out of here, please.


--
Peace and much love...




Nice sidestep of my questions (none / 0) (#47)
by Ben Reid on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 07:13:47 PM PST
"Also, any so-called "evolutionist" should realize that evolution, as a theory, does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe."

Correct. Maybe my original post was not clear enough. The beginning of the universe and what has occurred since then are two separate ideas.

You may think that the evolution theory is "strictly a theory of where different species of animals come from" (and I tend to agree) but I can guarantee you that is not the common thought. A quick visit to the evolutionists trumpet site talkorigns.com site will tell you that.

And the fact is that 99% of evolutionists will prescribe to the big bang theory as their explanation of the origin of the universe and 99% of creationists believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Note: I have talked to Christians that believe God created the universe and that evolution "took it from there", but this is a quite nonsensical position in my opinion.

Personally, I am as far removed from an evolutionist as you could imagine (see my reply to the AR) -- I am a new earth creationist. Maybe I was too objective in my original post for people to realise this.

So instead of sidestepping the issue this time, how about you tell me what you believe in and why you believe that the 6 day creation story is "idiotic"?



Re: (none / 0) (#50)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 02:24:13 AM PST
You may think that the evolution theory is "strictly a theory of where different species of animals come from" (and I tend to agree) but I can guarantee you that is not the common thought. A quick visit to the evolutionists trumpet site talkorigns.com site will tell you that.

Yes, it may be a "common" thought, but it as also a completely idiotic and unscientific thought.

The thought that shiny UFO's capture people with magnetic rays and subject them to anal probes is also quite common; that does not make it valid or worth discussing.

The literal interpretation of the six-day creation story is stupid because Genesis was quite obviously meant as a metaphor; in any case, a metaphor is the only way you can communicate complex subjects to illiterate goatherders; remember that Genesis was written in 3000 B.C. or so!

Besides, you cannot have a "day" as a unit of time measurement before you've created the earth, since a "day" is a unit fundamentally tied to our earth-side point of view.


--
Peace and much love...




Do you read the posts you reply to? (none / 0) (#52)
by Ben Reid on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 03:16:45 AM PST
Or do you just like arguments for arguments sake.

"Yes, it may be a "common" thought, but it as also a completely idiotic and unscientific thought."

Though I agree (as a creationist) I hope you do not try to debate with evolutionists by calling them idiotic. Ever heard of respect when debating Mr Tkatchev?

"The literal interpretation of the six-day creation story is stupid because Genesis was quite obviously meant as a metaphor;"

Seriously man, do you get off on insults? Do you realise that insulting people/ideas shows your own insecurity?

Yes there are metaphors throughout Genesis but the entire book of Genesis?. The flood? The tower of Babel? The story of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph all metaphors. Surely you don't believe that do you?

"a metaphor is the only way you can communicate complex subjects to illiterate goatherders;"

Agreed. God meets people where they are. That is why exegesis is so important.

"Besides, you cannot have a "day" as a unit of time measurement before you've created the earth, since a "day" is a unit fundamentally tied to our earth-side point of view."

Okay, fair enough. I tend to think the 6 day creation represents 6 periods of time though I am not entirely sure.

For the second time, you still haven't pointed out where you stand though. Forget about evolution, initially you said the theory of creation is incorrect so I am interested as to what you *do* believe.


Re: (none / 0) (#54)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 05:01:27 AM PST
Actually, I am not interested in debate. I'm interested in making a point; whether or not some sort of abstract "truth" is revealed is irrelevant to me.

As for the evolution/genesis argument, I really don't care, since I am not interested in problems of professional biology. As far as I am concerned, it's an academic question for me; I leave it to those that explore questions such as these professionally.


--
Peace and much love...




P.S. (none / 0) (#55)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 05:06:25 AM PST
I apologise if I have offended you.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Okay (none / 0) (#72)
by Ben Reid on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 04:01:10 PM PST
I was not pushing for a debate, really, just an honest opinion, but if you wish to pass that's fair enough. I do find it hard to believe you don't care about the origin and subsequent development of our universe in some capacity though.

I believe it goes far beyond an academic or biological debate, in fact I believe it is one of the primary ways that people can find God -- when they ask reasonably how and why we were put on this earth in the first place.

No man is truly indifferent to his existance.

"I see those frightful spaces of the universe which surround me, and I find myself tied to one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am put in this place rather than in another, nor why the short time which is given me to live is assigned to me at this point rather than at another of the whole eternity which was before me or which shall come after me.

I see nothing but infinites on all sides, which surround me as an atom and as a shadow which endures only for an instant and returns no more. All I know is that I must soon die, but what I know least is this very death which I cannot escape." -- Pascal, Pensees

p.s. Don't worry about offending me - you can only offend ego or pride and I couldn't care a less about either. And I can guarantee you that I don't get my sense of community from a weblog!


 
Why six day creation is idiotic (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 12:27:07 PM PST
If you believe that the entire Universe was poofed into existence 6,000 years ago or so, you are forced to disregard virtually all of modern natural science .. everything from biology to geology to botany to astronomy.

My advice is to seek mental help. Quickly. Before you become a threat to my (or somebody else's) family.


Actually, bone head (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 05:54:14 PM PST
Follow this reasoning:
<BR><BR>
Define God as something that can do anything
(Typical christian definition)
<BR>
Since God can do anything, Said God can create the universe RIGHT NOW with all of your memories and the 'natural science' everything already in it.
<BR>
The fact that God (if you believe the christian faith) decided to do this in six days is irrelevant.
<BR>
Further, PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that the universe wasn't created three seconds ago as explained above and you win and 'natural science' can be said to be 'true'. Otherwise STFU.
<BR><BR>
JoePain


Ah, but... (none / 0) (#107)
by budlite on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 02:14:34 AM PST
To completely invalidate the other guy's claim, you'd need to prove absolutely conclusively that the univers WAS created in six days. I don't think you can do that. Just so you know, I don't really think the other guy can prove the universe WASN'T created in six days.

This argument is something none of us are going to live to see the resolution of, so why bother fighting?


I was just commenting on (none / 0) (#111)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 11:54:33 AM PST
the fact that science != truth.


I know, but (none / 0) (#121)
by budlite on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 06:59:52 AM PST
if (science != truth) && (creationism != truth)
{
this_argument();
}


 
What kind of a moron... (none / 0) (#112)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 12:28:51 PM PST
...are you?

Of course it's impossible to prove that the entire Universe wasn't created in its present form three seconds ago. That is not what the Christians claim. If you were to go into the Deep South and claim that the Christian God instantaneously created the Universe in its present form, you would probably be lucky to escape with your life. They make very specific claims about how and when things were created. They do not suggest that some space god snapped its fingers and "poof", there everything is. To them, such a suggestion is a damnable blasphemy.


Except (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 04:05:29 PM PST
You assume that their church leaders (not the ignorant masses) haven't studied other religions or natural science. You point to a very small percentage of the christian faith. The vast majority of chistians DOUBT the 6 day creation.

The point is at some time it has to come down to faith. At some point you HAVE to believe a lie knowing full well that it isn't true. (look up faith) Even the axioms of natural science cannot be proven, they are taken, by DEFINITION as true--same with math.

My suggestion, before you start calling people that require faith morons or stupid or insane, is to understand why faith is necessary, and why people who possess faith are MUCH more stable than those who try to extract truth from science.


Right (none / 0) (#122)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 10:16:52 AM PST
people who possess faith are MUCH more stable than those who try to extract truth from science

Just like those 19 nice, stable fellows who flew those airplanes into skyscrapers on 9/11, right?


Again.. (none / 0) (#128)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 04:14:14 PM PST
You seem to have a problem with using sensational arguments. You site a group which AGAIN is a SMALL percentage of the population. What about all these Christians I mentioned before and the VAST majority of muslims. You argue like a 10 year old; you sound like FOX news or CNN.


 
Question. (none / 0) (#109)
by hauntedattics on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 06:58:35 AM PST
Why do people like this illustrious AR think that Christians are a constant potential threat to the well-being of themselves and their families? I've yet to meet anyone remotely like the crazed, Bible-thumping lunatics that they conjure up in their insanely paranoid posts.



Maybe (none / 0) (#110)
by jvance on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 11:38:36 AM PST
... they were horribly scarred by Jed and Cindy when they were in college
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Eek. (none / 0) (#116)
by hauntedattics on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 05:39:32 AM PST
Well, you know, Jed and Cindy don't look so bad, but that logo really has to go.

Or is that what you were referring to when you said "scarred" by Jed and Cindy?



 
Good God (none / 0) (#117)
by JoePain on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 06:07:38 AM PST
Is that a bloody knife?


 
Don't put words into my mouth (none / 0) (#46)
by Ben Reid on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 06:39:34 PM PST
"the very worst thing about evolution is the ignorant hordes who have certified it as an explanation for the cosmos. It isnt."

Look, I never proposed evolution as a valid explanation of the cosmos I was merely pointing out common opinion among people who believe in evolution alright?

"Yeah, so? Does that make one them right? What is the basis for this conceit that presumes to know reality on the basis of ideas?"

What's with the attitude my friend. Did I say one of them was unequivocally right? No. The fact is you cannot prove either idea scientifically (i.e. in the lab) which means you need a level of faith no matter what you believe.

Personally, based on the evidence I have come across, I believe in the theory of creation; that an infinitely powerful and loving God created the universe. I also believe that all life on this earth was created over a short period of time (6 days) and has deteriorated since.

This fits my perception of how the universe works better than any other. Do you believe in anything or do you prefer to play the devil's advocate on all ideas?

"The ancient greeks had ideas, too. Here is the history of two ideas: Mass appears to attract mass and all life appears interrelated; and just as Newton's theory of gravity was proved "wrong" and replaced, evolution will find a similar intellectual fate."

Thanks for that unrelated intellectual discourse. Yes we have superseded Newton's work on gravity. I could randomly throw in many ideas of the ancient Greeks that have been disproved too. Your point is what? That because one idea has been shown unsound all ideas will be shown unsound eventually? That wouldn't hold much water with the evolutionists I debate with I can tell you.

"Bah, every single cosmological theory without exception amounts to mathematical wanking. They're all impressive intellectual accomplishments which should be pursued for their own sake, but they're gibberish nevertheless."

I totally agree. Trying to explain the origins of the cosmos without a belief in God is pointless. God is the one who created the mathematical laws in the first place so how are we going to explain his creation in terms of them? The order in our universe is one of the clear testimonies of the existence of a God.

Instead of assuming my position on this area, how about you be bold enough to tell us where do you stand on this issue and why.



*sigh* (none / 0) (#53)
by Ben Reid on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 03:38:39 AM PST
"First, communicate more effectively. Second, I dont care about the 'your' in 'your position.' If you communicate an unintended point, its criticism is useful despite injury to your pride."

I don't care about my pride, I have none. You can abuse my pride all you like because I have surrended it to Jesus Christ.

Secondly, tell me exactly how I conveyed my belief in evolution in my first post. I was trying to be objective in order to gather an honest opinion from Mr tkatchev -- I apologise for any unintended point I may have conveyed but your offensive tone is unwarrented.

"I think evolution, like its cross disciplinary relation capitalism, has become the secular religion of modernism. I think it explains -- very poorly -- a lot less than its adherents would have us believe, and I expect it will eventually become scientifically discredited."

Agreed. I believe evolution has always been on scientifically shaky ground. Evolutionary theory stems primarily from the desire for humans to rid God entirely from their lives.

And despite secular thought, there is a large amount of evidence to support the theory of creation. See my favourite site on creation for more information if you like.

So I can see you do not believe in evolution which is a great, but what exactly do you believe in?

God bless,

Ben


 
God and math laws (none / 0) (#58)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 11:54:27 AM PST
Trying to explain the origins of the cosmos without a belief in God is pointless. God is the one who created the mathematical laws in the first place so how are we going to explain his creation in terms of them?

Take a large number of universes, with completely random rules of their behavior (math and physics laws). Let them exist on their own. Some universes will collapse. Some will converge to stable but dead state. Others will converge to a sort of dynamic equilibrium. Only these ones fulfill the requirements for formation of life.

The order in our universe is one of the clear testimonies of the existence of a God.

Again. Take a random system. Run it in an infinite loop, iterating over and over. Maybe it will diverge to plus or minus infinity - and collapse. Maybe it will converge to a fixed value, and become a stable but static and dead system. In the most interesting cases it will stabilize in a set of stable attractors. For more details about such systems check ie. The Computational Beauty of Nature: Computer Explorations of Fractals, Chaos, Complex Systems, and Adaptation.

The "order" in our universe is just a proof that our universe is one of the possible stable ones that behaves interestingly enough to allow formation of life. Says *nothing* about if it was designed intentionally or just emerged randomly.


non sequitur (none / 0) (#59)
by nathan on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 12:01:55 PM PST
Take a large number of universes, with completely random rules of their behavior (math and physics laws). Let them exist on their own. Some universes will collapse. Some will converge to stable but dead state. Others will converge to a sort of dynamic equilibrium. Only these ones fulfill the requirements for formation of life.

It's not clear to me that the laws of physics are akin to variables in a computer simulation. Why is it even meaningful to consider a universe with 'a different cosmological constant?' As it is inconceivable to show evidence that universes can vary in their laws of physics, your argument collapses to 'the universe is stable because it is stable.'

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Indeed. (none / 0) (#62)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 12:34:26 PM PST
Not to mention the fact that that the convergence of such an evolutionary system still needs to be proven; considering the number of variables and non-linear equations involved, I say good luck. :))


--
Peace and much love...




 
aint science grand? (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 12:34:43 PM PST
Take a large number of universes, with completely random rules of their behavior (math and physics laws). Let them exist on their own. Some universes will collapse. Some will converge to stable but dead state. Others will converge to a sort of dynamic equilibrium. Only these ones fulfill the requirements for formation of life.

Dear Mad Scientificist: Take an angel, pull it's wings, drop it 30 stories. If it survives, repeat experiment until you die of natural causes. Purpose of experiment: keeping the Mad Scientificist occupied will spare adequacy his nonsensical "scientific" explanations for the requirements of life.

Please dont tell me "no one cannot take an angel, dot dot dot", cuz' no one can "take a large number of universes," dot dot dot. Get the point? No, seriously, if you're going to be religious, worship me.


 
A question (none / 0) (#81)
by Ben Reid on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 09:48:26 PM PST
If you went for a walk along the beach and saw a watch on the sand, what would you think to yourself? That it was made by a skilled watchmaker and dropped there by him or someone else? Or that it spontaneously assembled itself from grains of sand?


An old question. (none / 0) (#114)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 03:46:34 PM PST
If you went for a walk along the beach and saw a watch on the sand, what would you think to yourself? That it was made by a skilled watchmaker and dropped there by him or someone else? Or that it spontaneously assembled itself from grains of sand?

Common question.

See common answer to arguments by design.


 
One Other Problem W/ Evolution (none / 0) (#32)
by gzt on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 11:45:47 AM PST
One other problem with the liberalists' popularized conception of evolution: it fosters an irrational belief in some numinous, poorly-defined, and ill-conceived notion of "progress".

From what I can tell, they believe it's inevitable, "good", and unquestionable. Like their foolish, unthinking beliefs in humanism, integers, and equality, their conception of progress is muddled and incapable of tolerating other views. Odd, since the liberalists claim to be relativists.

Cheers,
GZ


 
Not in public schools (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 08:11:04 AM PST
The point is that whether you believe in creationism or not it shouldn't be taught in schools. This is because of the unbelievable amount of stories there are on the subject. The muslims, the chritians, etc everyone has a different story on religion. If you teach only one religion in schools that and other people don't believe it is the right one there will be alot of contraversy and that little jewish boy won't be taught religion in accordance to his parents wishes. Teaching religion is a job for catholic schools.


Re: Not in Public Schools (none / 0) (#77)
by The dev0 on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 09:15:03 PM PST
I agree with your comment in theory, but when you consider that Christianity is the only religion that worships the true God, I believe our schools will have the opportunity to teach the followers of false religions that they themselves have the God-given power to deny their idolatry and follow the true Christ.
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...

 
Newton was wrong? (none / 0) (#27)
by dougmc on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 10:12:20 AM PST
However, we have known since the beginning of the 20th Century that these "laws" are nothing of the kind; Einstein's theory of general relativity is not at all compatible with Newton's "laws"
Obviously you never really learned your physics.

Einsten's laws are completely compatible with Newton's laws. To make this point even more clearly, the laws of quantum mechanics are also compatible with these other laws, and vice versa.

If you're computing the course of a baseball, then any of the three `laws' will work just fine. Newton will give you accurate results quickly. Einstein will require a lot more work, but will also work. Quantum mechanics will require massive amounts of computational power to completely model a macroscopic body like this without the massive number of simplifications made for all but the simplest cases, but eventually it would come up with the same answer.

Newton's laws break down for the very small (where quantum mechanics take over) and for the very fast (where relativity takes over.) But for the vast majority of `real world' calculations, Newton is *more* than accurate enough.
(for instance, Newtonian mechanics cannot be used to accurately describe the orbit of the planet Mercury.)
Newton's laws calculate Mercury's trajectory extremely accurately. Using relativistic equations will increase the accuracy -- but the difference is incredibly small. (yes, I did read your link. The difference is noticible -- but still *very* small.)

Does Nasa even bother taking into account relativity when they calculate the course of a space probe, for example? My guess is probably yes -- yes, the difference is miniscule, but computers are cheap and space craft are expensive.
Relativity, on the other hand , is consistent and measurably correct on virtually all levels, with the possible exception of situations involving extreme mass and energy where quantum effects can no longer be ignored.
Um, there's no `possible' exception here. It's *certainly* an exception. When you get that small, you cannot ignore quantum effects. Of course, at the atomic/subatomic level, things tend to move so fast that you often can't ignore relativistic effects either if you want any sort of accuracy.

Newton's laws can be deduced from the laws of relativity or the laws of quantum mechanics, which makes them less `all encompassing' than the other two sets of laws. That doesn't make them any less useful, especially in every-day calculations.

Newton was not wrong. And Einstein is not *completely* right. And ketchup is a vegetable :)


Obviously It's a Bit More Difficult (none / 0) (#31)
by gzt on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 11:30:49 AM PST
It really comes down to what one means when one says a theory is confirmed by facts. What does it mean to say that a scientific theory is 'right'? This really isn't a trivial question. I suggest you head to your nearest library and look at a good book, since if I discuss it any more, I'll be over my head.

Despite what you say, Newton's laws are not *entirely* compatible with Einstein's laws. Do you know what *entirely* means? You contradict yourself a little bit later when you discuss differences between them &c.

Before we discuss this, we really ought to retire to our respective studies and think awhile about what "law" really means, too.

Newton's wrong, Einstein is wrong, and you're disgusting. Ketchup?

Cheers,
GZT


 
ketchup is a trademark (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 12:40:25 PM PST
Einsten's laws are completely compatible with Newton's laws.

Of course they most emphatically are not. Their mathematical models may predict nearly identical numerical answers, but so will charts of tabulated numerical measurements gathered by theoryless observation. The relativistic "explanation" (theories, in the layman sense) for those measurements is literally a revolution in Newtonian mechanics. In fact, aside from pedestrian tweaks, refinement and incremental advances in technology, progress in science is a history of revolution in ideas, one radically different world view supplanting another. This is what distinguishes scientific genius; if you employ existing science to describe a hitherto unconsidered or "difficult" aspect of nature, you are not a genius. You havent advanced our understanding of nature at all.

Think about the implications of all this: The notion of science as a series of revolutions in ideas undermines the modernist's casual, uncritical belief in the cult of the scientificist. Either we understand everything because everything is already understood, or we are locked in a cycle of revolutionary ideas. The former means the scientist's opportunities for employment as the high priests of knowledge are numbered. The latter means we understand nothing at all and never will.

Note that science remains perfectly useful without ultimate understanding ("explanation"). That's because scientific explanations are, like all rational (language based) explanations, irrelevant or, as I prefer to believe, nonsensical. Although the progress of science will describe gravity's causal effects subject to increasingly sensitive measurement and unravelling of the causal chain, gravity itself will remain inscrutable. As will the inter-relatedness of life despite evolution's current celebrity status.

Of course, none of this means a damn thing; it was communicated in language and I've already stated my belief that rational thought is nonsensical. But hey, I'm not the one who wrote "less all encompassing".


 
Yes, Newton was wrong. (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 10:07:05 PM PST
(Note: I am the author of this article, but for some reason I am having troubles logging in and so I'll have to post anonymously.)

I think the problem that you're having is that you need to distinguish between accuracy of results and general correctness. A scientific theory can be completely bogus and still produce accurate results within a certain problem domain. For example, I could claim that there is an invisible chimpanzee named Chuck that grabs all thrown objects and pulls them towards the ground, accelerating them at the rate of 9.8 meters per second. Were we to test this theory, we would find its predictions to be highly accurate. Nevertheless, you would (I hope!) agree that this theory is complete nonsense, regardless of the accuracy of its preductions.

This is of course a silly example, but it is in this family of theories that Newtonian mechanics belongs. On Earth, and in pretty much any reasonable reference frame, it is "good enough" to produce accurate results, but to say that Newton's ideas were "correct" is simply .. uh, incorrect. :-) Many of the basic foundations of Newtonian mechanics are wrong. One of the most obvious faults is the way the Newton regarded time. Time, he claimed, was a sort of a universal, eternal railroad track, endlessly chugging along, and completely disconnected from the three spatial dimensions. The insistence on the idea of "absolute time" is one of Newtonian mechanics' most fundamental undoings.

Now, of course, we know that this is not the case. Time is most certainly not separate from the three spatial dimensions (or 11 or 26 spatial dimensions, depending on which version of superstring theory that you buy into.) Each observer has his or her own unique measure of time, and while this fact is largely meaningless to six billion people who are (essentially) in the same reference frame, it is significant in other applications. You asked if NASA incorporates relativity into its calculations, and I can tell you (from job experience) that they do. Earth-orbiting satellites must take relativistic effects regarding time into consideration; if they didn't, we would have some problems.

Now, when I say that Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in the grand scheme of things, I do not mean to detract from Newton's achievement (Principia Mathematica was a staggering accomplishment .. one of science's most important publications), nor do I suggest that it is not useful or it should no longer be used or taught in schools. I only mean to point out that since its introduction, we have learned that Newtonian mechanics is flawed in several of its most basic assumptions about the nature of the Universe. We should still teach it, because for all situations that schoolchildren are going to be exposed to, it is very accurate, and it is far easier to learn than relativity is. I, like you, do not want to be teaching eighth-graders about Lorentz transformations and a non-Euclidian continuum.

I think that we agree on much of this and are just niggling over terms such as "correct." In much of your reply, you are arguing for my position far better than I am capable of doing. Literal Creationism, like Newtonian mechanics, is "wrong" from a standpoint of correctness, but like Newtonian mechanics, it needs to be taught in our schools because it is easier for children to digest and has a far smaller chance of jarring their fragile sensibilities and causing them to inflict great harm, either upon themselves or others. You never hear about kids shooting up a school because they learned that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


 
Here's a good book (none / 0) (#92)
by jvance on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 10:41:51 AM PST
Sibling comments in this thread give a good overview of the flaws in your argument. For a more indepth understanding, I suggest you read up on your Philosophy of Science. Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a very good book. It reads well - better than most philosophy texts - and it gets you thinking beyond the confines of the book's subject.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Stop atheist indoctrination! (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 10:32:25 AM PST
You make some good points but I don't entirely agree with you. Check out one of my favorite websites which discusses this issue. We all need to be on guard against government/liberal propaganda!


um... (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 01:25:30 PM PST
Pardon me for thinking (I know that religion forbids it), but what is actually wrong with liberalism? Letting people choose for themselves and making up their own minds. Here you all are, citing the evils of liberalism. But what is actually wrong with it?


Nothing. (none / 0) (#38)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 02:08:26 PM PST
Except that it encourages circular "logic" and turns you into a drooling idiot.

But hey, as a liberalist, you probably consider drooling idiocy as the ultimate state of bliss.


--
Peace and much love...




 
NEWSFLASH: a liberalist proclaims his innocence (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 02:17:49 PM PST
...and asks to be "pardoned for thinking", adding insult to injury by insinuating non-liberalists cannot think.

Phlegm at 11.

Letting people choose for themselves and making up their own minds.

We have. Not that it matters, the pesky interfering liberalists wont let us teach evolution in our schools.

But what is actually wrong with it?

It thinks it's right and enforces its thinking. For example, it thinks evolution matters so much more than creationism that it forbids the teaching of creationism wherever it can and diminishes the beliefs of people who think creation might matter wherever it cannot. Liberalists believe their genitals occupy the center of the universe (Salon.com refers) without interference from non-liberalists, so why the double standard?


Genitals. (none / 0) (#41)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 02:52:26 PM PST
Actually, the ancient pagan religions all focused solely on genitals as the object of worship -- most pagan "gods" have highly symbolic sexual functions. The sexual tension in pagan mythology is written in a somewhat roundabout way, but it is definitely there.

This is why, by the way, in Indo-European culture "swear" words denote genitals or the sexual act -- at one time, "swear" words were actually sacred religious mantras. Since then they lost the "magical" aura they once had, but the subconscious taboo on uttering them is still in force, even in our highly industrialized society.


--
Peace and much love...




 
I Completely Agree (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 01:15:03 PM PST
This article makes an excellent point. But why stop there? We could teach the populus that "god" is watching their everymove and just waiting to punish them. That'll keep people in line.

In fact, we could teach the world that George W. Bush is god to keep America the way the Good Christian Conservatives want.

We could allow companies to falsely market their products, claiming that they do things they don't, because that would increase sales and boost the economy. And as you quite rightly pointed out "the end justifies the means".

What's the harm in lying to your friends that you need $10,000 for a cancer operation? The end result is that you have more money, which is obvioulsy good, so the means has been justified.

Of course you wouldn't care if you gave money to a charity who said they would use it to research AIDS cures then spent the money on buying bibles for Islamic schools. Because christianity is the only True Religion, so although your money hasn't been used how you were told it would be, it was still used for Good.


You forgot to log in. (none / 0) (#44)
by RobotSlave on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 04:28:24 PM PST
There should be a little box with the user name and password in the upper right hand corner, Orinoco. You'll have to turn your "cookies" back on, now that you're done with your pornography-viewing.

Did you by any chance write for Mad magazine, way back when?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Quick question (1.00 / 1) (#56)
by budlite on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 05:55:41 AM PST
What makes Christianity a more "true" religion than any of the others?

Valid arguments please, rather than saying "because God says so", or some other facile remark.


You probably didn't get it (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 03:58:19 AM PST
but I was using irony for my whole post. I think the article is complete tripe.


 
Isn't that neat? (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 11:25:07 PM PST
Hey cool, you used the Santa Claus thing too, except..well..I did it first. Heh. The only problem is, no one who's believes in their religion listens to evolution that's taught in class. People simply won't believe it, and I can assure you that evolution is not the reason we have Marilyn Manson or body piercings. Besides, who cares if it's wrong that we teach incorrect things in school? I do.

-D


 
What is the Big Bang anyway? (none / 0) (#51)
by lowapproach on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 02:56:49 AM PST
...except creationism for nerds? At least the followers of a religion assign a culprit to their universe's being. For all that we can see with electromagnetic telescopes of the traces of the universe's beginning, science cannot provide an answer as to how, when and why the singularity that became our universe formed and then exploded outward. They go on and on about what happened in the first billionth of a second post-Bang, but ask them about what happened in all the infinite expanse before and you'll rarely get an answer as concise as "Uhh."

There's a lot that's taught in primary and secondary education, about which professors and academics have a contrary opinion due to some significant exception to a rule, or information contested at the curricular level. That an idea doesn't have complete acceptance the world over doesn't make it invalid as a learned concept. You're building core knowledge at that point, and frankly most of the subjects on which a high school student should have strong knowledge [i.e. arithmetic, enough language skills to write a clear paragraph] don't have so much controversy surrounding them.

What we need to teach high school students is that you ultimately teach yourself, and people who express themselves capably and command respect from their peers can occasionally be full of shit. Caveat emptor.


Before Big Bang... (none / 0) (#74)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 06:43:21 PM PST
They go on and on about what happened in the first billionth of a second post-Bang, but ask them about what happened in all the infinite expanse before and you'll rarely get an answer as concise as "Uhh."

There is a problem with this question - it doesn't have sense. "Before" and "After" are terms that are dependent on time. Existence/behaviour of time is dependent on matter/energy. Time is also commonly refered to as one of the dimensions. The matter (or energy, in some situations - ie, extremely high temperatures and energy densities - it isn't practical to distinguish between them) and all the dimensions appeared at the moment of Big Bang. The nature of the Singularity itself is as far as I know unknown yet. The time 0 is also the very moment from when the terms like "before" and "after" start giving sense. You can't ask what was "before Big Bang" because there was no "before" because there was no time itself.


re: Before Big Bang... (none / 0) (#79)
by The dev0 on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 09:35:52 PM PST
So what, a universe just decided to occur? your argument about definitions of time still stands, but what was the ultimate beginning then, doctor?

You can't ask what was "before Big Bang" because there was no "before" because there was no time itself.

Is that your official answer? When exactly did science prove this?

Your point is based on conjecture...


Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...

 
You poor frightened geek. (none / 0) (#87)
by RobotSlave on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 04:04:29 AM PST
It really scares the crap out of you when you're faced with a question that can't be answered with a soldering iron, doesn't it?

Very well, then. Let us abandon this talk of "before" and "after," since it bothers you so much. Let's try the question this way: What caused the Big Bang? Or like this: What created the Big Bang?

No need to fuss over Time not existing before time started, or whatever this technicality is that you're trying to use to dodge the question.

I know what you're going to do next. You're going to tell us that there was no cause, that the universe came about as a result of random oscillations, of chaotic fluctuations, that it is merely one of countless permutations.

And you will be begging the question again.

Oscillations of what, exactly? Fluctuations in what medium, pray tell? Permutations of what, good sir? The Catholic astrophysicist would answer, "the mind of God." You, on the other hand, are forced to answer with words that cause you tremendous discomfort: "I don't know."

What's more, science can not answer these questions. Ever. If you had even a basic understanding of philosophy in addition to all of your memorized equations and tables and theorems and constants, then you would have come to grips with this by now, one way or another.

You prefer the life of a highly paid craftsman to that of an intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that. But when you try to solder a brittle technician's answer onto a timeless philosophical question that you are not sufficiently learned to address, you make a fool of yourself, and you make your fellow engineers look foolish by association. Do them a favor, and admit that you are out of your depth.




© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Simple Question (none / 0) (#95)
by jvance on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 07:51:46 PM PST
Oscillations of what, exactly? Fluctuations in what medium, pray tell? Permutations of what, good sir? The Catholic astrophysicist would answer, "the mind of God."

Where did the Mind of God come from? Who created it? What existed before the Mind of God?

How is your answer to this question qualitatively different from Mr. Mad Scientist's?

I'm not being glib. I'm interested in your thoughts.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Who cares? (none / 0) (#96)
by tkatchev on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 09:38:54 PM PST
Since we cannot even begin to understand the "mind of God" (by definition) it's a stupid question in the first place.


--
Peace and much love...




Exactly (none / 0) (#97)
by jvance on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 10:02:18 PM PST
And since we cannot ever truly understand the Universe, the parallel questions about it are equally stupid.

Just following your logic.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Of course. (none / 0) (#98)
by tkatchev on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 10:36:57 PM PST
I agree. Seriously, I am not sarcastic.

You see, there is a difference between "producing useful results" (what science is all about) and "understanding the universe". (Which is what wacky uneducated liberalists do when they are bored.)


--
Peace and much love...




Thank you. (none / 0) (#103)
by jvance on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 07:09:31 AM PST
So there is a set of questions that cannot be answered by science, because their very nature does not allow for scientific enquiry. These questions are rightly in the realm of non-rational thought - faith.

David Hume had a solution for that set of questions, but it's a bit extreme, I think.

PS I appreciate the serious answer.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Who, me? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by RobotSlave on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 12:57:01 AM PST
Look, it was pretty clear that I was giving you a hypothetical Catholic Astrophysicist's answer, not my own. Let's be a little more careful about reading stuff before we go posting all willy-nilly, OK?

Me, I don't believe in God, but that's not really germane at the moment. What matters is that I don't think that there is an answer to the question of where the universe came from, while Captain Soldering Iron seems to be very sure that he and his Science have it all figured out, pretty much, with just a few details here and there to be filled in.

I do think Cosmology can be pretty interesting stuff, but not when it's just a few ignorant pissants wrangling over whose made-up story gets to be called the "truth," with a handful of morons egging them on from the cheap seats.

Fussing over the origin of The Universe seems pretty silly to me, because I can't really be sure that I exist in the first place, let alone that the whole damned universe is actually there, you know? I mean, the best I can do, really, is cling to Descarte's little aphorism, and plenty of holes have been punched in that old chestnut at this late date.

Personally, I get the feeling that the Universe would rather I didn't ask it when it got here, and whether it took a cab or the subway, and did it bring its sister along, and where was it last Thursday, anyway? Just this once would it be too much trouble for someone to hand The Universe a drink and let it relax for a bit without giving it the third degree?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

The best bang since the big one (none / 0) (#100)
by because it isnt on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 04:11:22 AM PST
while Captain Soldering Iron seems to be very sure that he and his Science have it all figured out, pretty much, with just a few details here and there to be filled in.

Well, there's theism in that, but the four forces make a pretty poor spiritual replacement for an all-knowing infinite being.

I can't really be sure that I exist in the first place.

On the contrary, that's the only thing you can be sure about in this cruel world. You might not exist in the form you think you do (brains, jars, etc.), but by considering your existance, you accidentally prove it.

Now, if only you could prove you exist to someone else, or prove independantly that someone else exists, you could get yourself a soulmate, of sorts...
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Nice try. In a sort of stupid way, I guess. (none / 0) (#101)
by RobotSlave on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 05:18:03 AM PST
Go back and read the bit about Descartes, with special attention to the note that his little assertion has been shot full of holes.

For someone who seems to sort of enjoy that queer British irony stuff, you seem to have quite a bit of trouble with allusion.

Mind you, since I'm prepared to accept the possiblity that I don't exist at all, not even as a jar full of brain, I'm not terribly bothered by the fact that I might cease to exist in the dreamless hours of sleep, or in the countless passing moments of "concious" * life in which I'm not particularly "aware" of my "self."

* flimsy concepts that do not stand up in the face of even the mildest examination have been placed in quotes.

 

I think the short bus must have unloaded at The Adequacy recently. There seem to be a whole lot of developmentally disabled trollops slowing the class down, all of a sudden. Is it time for The Adequacy to start a Special Education program? We could start by teaching them to say their names right, with attention to the difference between a noun and an adjective.

adequacy.org -- because it lacks said quality
adequacy.org -- because it hasn't any
adequacy.org -- because I'm slow and mildly autistic


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Oh no what a personal disaster! (none / 0) (#102)
by because it isnt on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 06:57:57 AM PST
Go back and read the bit about Descartes, with special attention to the note that his little assertion has been shot full of holes.

Perhaps you could provide a few references. Descartes had many ideas, and many of them were flawed, but I'd love to meet someone who postulates that entities can consider their own existance without actually existing at the same time. Such a person would be a bigger contrarian than I am.

We could start by teaching them to say their names right

If I rewrote the tagline in a grammatically correct way, it would no longer require the reader to pause and consider what adequacy.org was not.
senseofhumour -- because you haven't


adequacy.org -- because it isn't

There is help for people like you. (none / 0) (#104)
by RobotSlave on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 07:18:36 PM PST
If you couldn't figure out what I was referencing back there, then I don't think you'd be able to appreciate it once it was pointed out to you. Why are geeks so ignorant of philosophy? Are they just not interested in thinking?

If you rewrote the tagline in a grammatically correct way, it would no longer require the reader to pause and consider how very stupid you are, either. Why don't you link the signature to your lengthy explanation of the patently obvious while you're at it?

If you would be willing to direct me to a resource on acquiring this "sense of humor" that you refer to, then I will gladly share some pointers on how to be an effective trollop. You need a lot of help, you know. And it's OK to ask for it. In fact, I think you might find people are a lot nicer to you once you've admitted your ignorance.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Dear Mr/Mrs RobotSlave... (none / 0) (#105)
by because it isnt on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 07:17:28 AM PST
If you couldn't figure out what I was referencing back there

Oh, please. I apologise for not just passively sitting back and applauding your vague handwaves and allusions. What part of cogito ergo sum do you not understand?

You need a lot of help, you know. And it's OK to ask for it.

Asking for help on Adequacy. I take it back - you do have a sense of humour, albeit a twisted, black one.

If you'll excuse me, I'm off to read the book reviews in the newspaper. Oh, I forgot! All critiques are "patently obviously"!
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Boohoo I am scared! (none / 0) (#113)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 01:05:42 PM PST
Oscillations of what, exactly? Fluctuations in what medium, pray tell? Permutations of what, good sir? The Catholic astrophysicist would answer, "the mind of God." You, on the other hand, are forced to answer with words that cause you tremendous discomfort: "I don't know."

Yes. "I don't know" brings discomfort. It's what propels the research. Or what brings the need to use an obsolete kludge to soothe that discomfort - insert god(s) into the unknown.

What's more, science can not answer these questions. Ever.

I wouldn't be so sure. I think time will prove you wrong. What we know is that philosophers hadn't managed to come up with a suitable answer for millenia. So don't be so harsh to physicists when they hadn't got good-enough-for-you results in the couple decades the modern physics exists.

If you had even a basic understanding of philosophy in addition to all of your memorized equations and tables and theorems and constants, then you would have come to grips with this by now, one way or another.

My bet stays on the physicists. The team of Babbling Philosophers will lose again, as they lost every game; the best score they can ever hope for when playing against the Scientists is a draw.


 
Time as a measure of change: (none / 0) (#154)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 7th, 2002 at 07:39:06 PM PST
If you address time as being a measure of change, your statement that there was no time before the Big Bang has 2 possible outcomes:

A.) There was no change before the Big Bang, therefore the Big Bang ignores the whole 'cause and effect' idea.

B.) The Big Bang could not have happened, as nothing could have possibly motivated it to happen, what with there being no change prior to said Bang to make said Bang occur.

QED, you are misguided. Just say "I don't know."


 
wayward children... (none / 0) (#75)
by poltroon on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 08:20:16 PM PST
What makes you think young criminals don't believe in God or creationism? According to this recent article in the Atlantic about violent teenagers:
"They haven't read much. But some of them, the more down-and-out ones especially, read the Book of Revelation a lot."
Looks like about the only thing they've ever studied is the bible. Are you suggesting that they simply need more structured bible study?


I started to read it the other day (none / 0) (#108)
by hauntedattics on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 06:53:50 AM PST
but I started to get depressed and had to move on to the short story.

I'm not sure I'd equate 'the Book of Revelation' with 'the Bible.' It's one of the Bible's books, yes, but possibly the only one that would attract an already violent, wayward, nihilistic teenager.



 
Creationism is not science (none / 0) (#76)
by elzubeir on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 09:10:53 PM PST
This is a very silly post, not-withstanding the author's elaborate writing. A simplified definition of science would be, the study of natural phenomena and discovering the principles governing that natural phenomena. The keyword here is, 'natural'. Since creationism does not deal with natural phenomena, and introduces supernatural concepts, it is simply not appropriate in a biology class.

However, that does not mean that we should discount it from being taught at all. It should simply be placed approrpriately into the curriculum. Perhaps in philosophy classes?


 
God has no place in schools (none / 0) (#78)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 09:24:57 PM PST
At least not in public schools. Before I get to that I would like to applaud gbd for actually writing an controversial article rather than the same old "follow the crowd and call it controversial crap I usually read. It seems most of the controvery is raised from the readers or at least the editors who result to immature name calling (ie stupid lunix teenage hacker terrorist).

Nevertheless, I maintain that schools need to teach Biblical Creationism.

You could not refer to it as Biblical as there are many people that do not follow the same religious beliefs as others. Secondly, you cannot use the majority due to separation of church and state and the freedom of religion. Yes separation of chirch and state is in the Contitution despite what Pat Robertson and his followers believe:
"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This simply wouldn't work if there wasn't a separation of church and state. A theocracy would inevitably violate the First Amendment. Separation of church and state is the only way to insure that freedom of religion is kept.

No matter how you look at it every religion or belief system does support some kind of creation. They are however, no always similar. I however, can explain the wonder of the universe, and both proove evolution and creation (all beliefs) at the same time. However, I will not tell you all. Why? Next thing I know soneone jackass (and there are many here and not limited to the readers). I will however, give you some clues. I'll explain it using examples from the Bible as many people here usually discuss it more often that any other text although I still believe they are all just books that are completely full of shit.

God (or may be you prefer Allah which is the Arabic word for God or the Great Spirit like the Native Americans) created man in his image is a belief of many religions. Does this mean God looks like a man? Nope. There is also a verse in the bible which reads "the true kingdom of heavy is inside us and all around us" It also says the earth was created in seven days. What is 7 days to God? It's not specific. It doesn't talk about the death of or evolution of Dinosaur that ruled the earth. Sience say we are all created of the same thing. You know atoms (uhhh Adam). What are atome composed of? Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons, which are components of...?

So what is it? ENERGY. So waht does that make God? Get it? If you compress energy into a finite spce what do you get? A man? Noooo, you get MATTER. See where I'm going? Can YOU figure out the rest of the BASICS (that's right basics)? There's a whole lot more that'll you'll never know.


 
Newton's Laws (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 05:25:47 PM PST
There's a difference between teaching an approximation of the truth and teaching out-and-out BS. I don't know if you remember when you were a kid or not, but kids don't like being lied to. Teaching lies in school is just asking for trouble in the long run.


 
Teach Taoism (none / 0) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 10:27:36 AM PST
As I philosophy, I find Taoism to be really great. I'm atheist, so I vote thumbs down on creationism.

Wanna make people in general better? Teach them to live in harmony with nature and each other, rather than some cruel bastard in the clouds will ruin your life if you "sin". The world is what we make of it, and as such we are responsible for our pain and pleasure.

ANd instead of phys-ed, schools should teach a form of martial arts with a like-minded philosophy. My vote goes to aikido, which (in its true form) focuses on conflict resolution, rather than kicking someone's ass. If everybody could pretty much screw up anybody else, fights would be much more rare. (Likewise, if the disparity in gun ownership weren't so bad, I feel crime would drop, too. If everyone carried a gun, far fewer acts of random violence would be carried out. But that's a different topic.)


Hrm (none / 0) (#126)
by budlite on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 01:41:32 PM PST
It's a very nice idea. I can't help getting the feeling that something somewhere would go horribly wrong though...


horribly wrong? (none / 0) (#127)
by nathan on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 02:31:32 PM PST
Have you actually looked at Taoist theology, teleology, and cosmology?

The Taoist religion's ideas of what preceded the current order are far less sensical than anything the looniest ID-theorist dreamt up on his wildest acid trip. Just goes to show how the liberalists will swallow anything so long as it's anti-Christian.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You can't learn it by reading. (none / 0) (#142)
by dmg on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 06:13:17 PM PST
The Tao (Dao) that can be written of is not the true Tao (Dao).

Perhaps that's where you are getting confused.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

you are quite incorrect. (none / 0) (#143)
by nathan on Mon Mar 4th, 2002 at 04:43:39 AM PST
Notice I said "looked at," not "read."

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You are still (none / 0) (#144)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 4th, 2002 at 05:23:33 AM PST
four senses off the pace.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Why all the fuss? (none / 0) (#134)
by thecapn on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 06:15:16 PM PST
Hasn't anyone ever heard the phrase "curiosity killed the cat"? I'm not sure the debate matters anymore. If I find out that a Supreme Being created the universe in six days tomorrow, the newspaper still comes in the morning and my life is not affected that much. I think before anyone embarks on discovering the origin of the speciation of man or the origin of the universe, they should question whether the answer the receive will be worth the time invested. Personally I think everyone's time might be better invested by playing ping pong, which might seem lame to you all but I really like ping pong.


Curiosity (none / 0) (#135)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 07:40:28 PM PST
Hasn't anyone ever heard the phrase "curiosity killed the cat"?

What exactly do we risk here? Maybe wrath of a bad-tempered (see the Old Testament) deity that doesn't seem to exist at all?

I'm not sure the debate matters anymore. If I find out that a Supreme Being created the universe in six days tomorrow, the newspaper still comes in the morning and my life is not affected that much.

The debate itself will not yield anything; the ones talking the loudest are usually the Babbling Philosophers for whom couple millenia wasn't enough to find any decent answer. The ones who have better odds are in laboratories and do real work.

I think before anyone embarks on discovering the origin of the speciation of man or the origin of the universe, they should question whether the answer the receive will be worth the time invested.

This argument can be used to kill more or less any elementary (non-applied) research in its very beginning. If everyone would "think" this way, we'd still live on trees and arguing over bananas.

Personally I think everyone's time might be better invested by playing ping pong, which might seem lame to you all but I really like ping pong.

Try playing it with two balls. It's much more fun.


hey, jackass (none / 0) (#136)
by nathan on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 10:54:24 AM PST
Explain to me whether Roger Bacon was a Babbling Philosopher or a "technical person." How about Einstein? How about Heisenberg?

I really wish you would stop attacking fields that it's clear you don't understand. Philosophy and real science (as opposed to gadgetry) are very closely related. Even the most cursory scientific survey would prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Nathan

PS - Your nasty insinuation about 'real work' is not well taken. You utter jackass.
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Heh! (none / 0) (#145)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Mar 4th, 2002 at 08:13:55 PM PST
Explain to me whether Roger Bacon was a Babbling Philosopher or a "technical person." How about Einstein? How about Heisenberg?

A piece of both, though luckily they hadn't let their babbling side having detrimental impact to their work. (Tangent: An interesting question is if Bacon, if he'd lived in current political climate, would attract the attention of FBI with his interest in Arabic writings.)

I really wish you would stop attacking fields that it's clear you don't understand.

I thought it's normal? After all, when all the hackers are criminals (hi, Elenchos!), isn't it time to finally admit that all the philosophers aren't more than just a bunch of prattlers?

Philosophy and real science (as opposed to gadgetry) are very closely related. Even the most cursory scientific survey would prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Philosophy and Real Science were once overlapping. After the times of ancient Greece they started to slowly separate. They still have something in common, but the best distinction is in the usability (both actual and potential) of their results, and the methods used. Philosophy is now obsolete, all its four main branches: metaphysics by physics, epistemology by informatics, ethics was always a babbling seamlessly replaceable by common sense, and the key answers for aesthetics are buried in the structure of brain, waiting to be extracted by neurology and neuropsychology - together with the basic keys for what we determine "good" and "bad" and subjectivity in general, which ethics claims to be built on, and with the limits of brain dataprocessing capabilities, which are the hidden cornerstone of epistemology. The philosophers are heading to pretty rude awakening; the answers they seem to seek will come from labs.

PS - Your nasty insinuation about 'real work' is not well taken. You utter jackass.

Oh - seems I hit a sore spot...?


you are so stupid it hurts (none / 0) (#146)
by nathan on Tue Mar 5th, 2002 at 06:18:49 AM PST
Metaphysics is superceded by physics?

No, wait, let me try again. Aesthetics is superceded by neurology?!

Listen up, son. I've tried telling you this in seven different ways, and this is going to be the last time. The scientific method can tell us how things work, but it can't tell us why. The scientific method is a technique for inquiry into the mechanics of the universe. It is of no use in answering questions such as "why can a straight line be drawn between any two points," much less "what is love" or "what happens to our consciousness after death."

If you claim that the universe is nothing but a mechanical system - a Newtonian clockwork machine with Einsteinian extensions, so to speak - you're not just making a statement about the universe, you're making one about yourself. You're stating that your own consciousness is an accident, without any meaning in itself. You're stating that any free will you might experience is only a "useful" biofeedback adaptation by a successful species. I put useful in quotes because that even invites the question of useful to whom. To your cells? To the species? To your selfish genes? There's no one there to use it if people aren't privileged beings.

As for your totally bogus and insulting dismissal of the philosophical work of such as Einstein, I invite you to consider whether philosophical inquiry wasn't of some use to Einstein when he shattered the reigning physical-science paradigms with his work on relativity. There's a reason why everyone thinks relativity when they think Einstein (rather than thinking Brownian motion, or the photoelectric effect.) Special relativity overturned the Newtonian conception of the nature of time in the universe - which is an eminently philosophic topic.

As for touching a nerve, you're damned right. I'm a farmer's son who grew up with machinery and tools. I studied mathematical physics and computer science at university, but I'm doing a graduate degree in music. I work as a political officer in student politics, and I gave a paper at the graduate philosophy seminar two years ago on ethical theory. All these things are vastly interesting to me. I think you're totally full of shit to dismiss philosophy. I think it's unbelievably rude and nasty for you to spit on the thousands of smart, dedicated, worthwhile people who study fields other than gadgetry. Good for you that you can do it! It doesn't invalidate anybody else's work.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Who? Me? (none / 0) (#147)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 5th, 2002 at 01:25:53 PM PST
Metaphysics is superceded by physics?

Yes. Metaphysics has no chance to find conclusive answers to anything.

No, wait, let me try again. Aesthetics is superceded by neurology?!

The best way (and the only one with decent chances to get any results) to answer what is beauty is to take apart and study the circuits of brain that are related to processing of sensory inputs and emotions, to sensing of what we call beauty.

Listen up, son. I've tried telling you this in seven different ways, and this is going to be the last time. The scientific method can tell us how things work, but it can't tell us why.

Can philosophy tell us why? Can it come with a conclusive answer? What I seen as far is a bunch of babblers arguing for millenia over claims they can't prove nor disprove, not even theoretically.

The scientific method is a technique for inquiry into the mechanics of the universe. It is of no use in answering questions such as "why can a straight line be drawn between any two points," much less "what is love" or "what happens to our consciousness after death."

I reiterate, what chances has philosophy to come up with such answers? After thousands of years of fruitless attempts, it's time to try brute force and take the world apart.

If you claim that the universe is nothing but a mechanical system - a Newtonian clockwork machine with Einsteinian extensions, so to speak - you're not just making a statement about the universe, you're making one about yourself. You're stating that your own consciousness is an accident, without any meaning in itself.

Does it have any meaning? I suppose you think so; why do you think so? Any reason to, or just a wishful thinking?

You're stating that any free will you might experience is only a "useful" biofeedback adaptation by a successful species.

I never said this; however, it seems to be a bit oversimplified but otherwise pretty close.

I put useful in quotes because that even invites the question of useful to whom. To your cells? To the species? To your selfish genes? There's no one there to use it if people aren't privileged beings.

They are? Why? Wishful thinking, again?

As for your totally bogus and insulting dismissal of the philosophical work of such as Einstein, I invite you to consider whether philosophical inquiry wasn't of some use to Einstein when he shattered the reigning physical-science paradigms with his work on relativity.

Wasn't it scientific enquiry?

There's a reason why everyone thinks relativity when they think Einstein (rather than thinking Brownian motion, or the photoelectric effect.)

Yep, it was quite large-scale paradigm shift.

Special relativity overturned the Newtonian conception of the nature of time in the universe - which is an eminently philosophic topic.

Nature of time is a topic that belongs to physics, not to philosophy. Einstein is a prime example of what happens when you take questions formerly improperly assigned to philosophers and unleash scientists to them.

As for touching a nerve, you're damned right. I'm a farmer's son who grew up with machinery and tools. I studied mathematical physics and computer science at university, but I'm doing a graduate degree in music. I work as a political officer in student politics, and I gave a paper at the graduate philosophy seminar two years ago on ethical theory. All these things are vastly interesting to me.

Good for you. But be wary about the answers philosophy gives you. It's a nice toy; can be interesting, but I'd not rely on it.

I think you're totally full of shit...

Is it a suggestion to take a laxative?

...to dismiss philosophy. I think it's unbelievably rude and nasty for you to spit on the thousands of smart, dedicated, worthwhile people who study fields other than gadgetry. Good for you that you can do it! It doesn't invalidate anybody else's work.

What you call "gadgetry" is a way to *prove or disprove* the claims. Everyone can come up with claims; but only observations and reproducible experiments can back them. This is why scientists were, are, and will stay superior over philosophers.


'Aesthetics' vs. 'Science' (none / 0) (#148)
by hauntedattics on Tue Mar 5th, 2002 at 03:36:37 PM PST
according to Einstein himself, the inspiration for the theory of relativity came from the aesthetic experiences he had while playing the violin.

He has a very famous quote somewhere; I'll find it and get back to you.




 
Use your science to prove the existence... (none / 0) (#156)
by derek3000 on Fri Mar 8th, 2002 at 01:48:22 PM PST
of this post. Or this site, for that matter. And no, don't post the results of 'nslookup adequacy.org'.

The best way (and the only one with decent chances to get any results) to answer what is beauty is to take apart and study the circuits of brain that are related to processing of sensory inputs and emotions, to sensing of what we call beauty.

When the love of your [life | process] dies in front of you from a sickening [disease | recursive-malicious-algorithm], and you are left feeling [helpless | no utility on Freshmeat], [empty | 20gigs? 30?], and [overwhelmed | no RAM left] you can just assure yourself that the [chemicals | circuits] in your [brain | cpu] have been acting up again.

Does it have any meaning? I suppose you think so; why do you think so? Any reason to, or just a wishful thinking?

Does it not have any meaning? I'm eager to hear your response; you seem to be the master of all that is existential.

Nature of time is a topic that belongs to physics, not to philosophy.

Time is something we perceive. Epistimology, anyone? Despite all of the wonderful people who surround me and support me, sometimes I still feel lonely. I can take comfort in knowing that you must feel ten times worse.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
"Real work". (none / 0) (#140)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 12:13:00 PM PST
FYI, "real work" is work that gets dirt under your fingernails.

And no, soldering tin doesn't count.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Lying to kids is never right (none / 0) (#151)
by CokeBear on Wed Mar 6th, 2002 at 02:02:58 PM PST
Even if I granted that some of your arguments are valid (and I don't) I would argue that it is always wrong to lie to kids.<P>Drugs are a good example of why: Teach kids that all drugs are bad, and when they try pot and find out you lied to them, they think you lied about heroin too. Better to tell them the truth about pot (its not so bad) and about heroin (it will really fsck you up).<P>Same with religion. If you try to feed them bullshit like creationism, then when they take Intro to Biology in University and discover you lied, they will begin to question all of their religious beliefs. (Which actually may not be such a bad thing, but thats a different article.)


 
Bloody Hell (none / 0) (#160)
by DeepOmega on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 07:25:04 PM PST
I find it interesting that protecting the children from themselves is cited as a reason to misinform them... Especially in a situation when it is arguable that children need the protection.

Recently, there's been a rediculous amount of media coverage of violence among teens and children. With the Columbine shootings (and spiraling from there) the media has gotten rabid about any violence in any school. With all this coverage, it's no wonder people think that children are "going astray." The thing is, the number of kids who've died in an attack by a peer (in school and out) has gone down since the fifties. The difference is that while there are fewer incidents now, they are of a larger scale and are covered in greater depth than in previous years.

As for a lot of the trends and so forth that have been "degrading" today's youth, well, I'd like to point out the cause of it. To put it simply, it's parents. For centuries, parents had a tight hold on their kids, keeping them under lock and key, and basically beating the shit out of them if they disobeyed. This fostered a sense of fear, and prevented initiative for a long while on the part of the children. The young age of parents (mid teens) lead to a greater "connection" to their childhood and the strict obedience associated with it, and causing them to play out their designated roles as stern parents to a great degree. Now, fast forward to the early 1900s. By this point, people were becoming parents older and older, taking longer to settle down. This resulted in less connection to the obedience of their childhood. Thus, parents were perhaps not as strict and tolerated a bit more "disobedience." Their children, in turn, had even less connection to a strict childhood, and were even more tolerant of deviances in their children. And their children did the same. And that generation is the one currently in charge now, governing young people. They don't give as strong a message of right and wrong at a young age, and they don't really give a flying fuck about their children in far too many cases. The solution to this problem is not the alienation of teens by force-feeding them messages of a vengeful God. Hell, we may as well warn them that there are angry invisible midgets hiding under their chairs that leap out and kick 'em in the crotch if they don't do exactly what they're told. Instead, we need to get parents to care again, and to instill in their children a firm foundation of the "basic" morals of life. Let them work out their religious beliefs and ideas on their own.

Peace and much love...


 
Aren't we already doing this? (none / 0) (#161)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 11:14:14 PM PST
Great argument, but it strikes me that we're already indoctrinating our nation's children for the sake of public bahavior. Maybe it's different out there in Seattle or San Francisco, but growing up in the Midwest, I felt this same kind of bending was going on with the rules of reality taught in public school.

I also doubt that leaving it for college is a workable solution. College is just another series of ideological programming experiments conducted by our government. People complain about a liberal bias in the media, when they should be complaining about a liberal bias in public higher education. After all, all network news reporters are college graduates.

People go to college so that they can reap the benefits of the new merit system, which replaced the spoils systems of the previous century. What this new "merit system" really means is not that one gains position through worth, but through credentials. And having gained credentials implies that one has been conditioned to serve the establishment through higher education.

When you get down to it, it would serve the goals of our government, or as they like to say, our society, to continue this charade through higher education.

I was personally offended by your remarks about the non-college educated. Not every person who refuses to participate in that farce is a ditch digger. And I'll have you know that the only religious nut in my family graduated with a BA in political science, and is now a housewife. I've read more than every rich kid in my college class, and I realize that the only job their degree will get them is one which would be equally attainable if they'd majored in folklore. A college degree only proves to employers that you're "trainable."

The big belly whoppers on American history are enough of a shock for college students. We don't need to be messing with their minds by telling them God doesn't exist. Let's just placate them.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.