Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Trump says science is a fake (Score 1) 382

In the words of Far Field Productions, What's that mean? Personally, I see him as the lesser evil of two completely flawed candidates, but I have no idea what he's going to do. Either, 1. He is the democrat that he's always been and duped the American public, 2. He's a far right crazy man who wants to ban people from our country based on religion and deport a significant portion of the people in this country 3. He's become conservative and said those things to get media coverage, and will be a sane conservative president Who knows!

Comment Re:Anti-Choice? WTF (Score 2) 260

Both sides advocate for the removal of choice, it's just which choices they feel are legitimate.

The left is more likely to remove the choice of gun ownership, the choice of who you can do business with, what size soda you can buy, or what you can say as a religious leader.

The right is more likely to remove the choice of whether you can kill your fetus or baby (depending on your viewpoint)

Whether abortion should be legal really comes down to a belief. When does a person become a person? If you believe a person becomes a person when they exit their mother's womb, then you should have no problem with the term pro-abortion. If that's your belief, then you shouldn't even care if there are fewer abortions. It's just a medical procedure extracting unwanted cells from a woman's body. If, however, you believe a person becomes a person before that, then under no circumstances, other than the certainty of making a choice between the mother's or the baby's life, should someone be allowed to kill the baby at that point.

I've heard people point to many tests to determine person-hood: viability, heartbeat, sensing pain, the ability to survive on it's own (which may not really happen well into childhood). It's really a question of when does a child obtain rights.

Personally, I find it unscientific and arbitrary to say a person becomes a person because they changed location.

Comment Re: Laptops (Score 1) 383

Most of my computers are older, but I've had better success with Linux (new versions) over Windows finding drivers. I'm assuming that Windows had dropped the drivers, but I've had hardware (soundcards, NICs, etc.) that just work in Linux but Windows didn't see them.

Comment Re:Wait a sec (Score 0) 772

As one who knows evolution happens but doesn't believe in evolution as is referenced in this article, I know evolution happens within a kind of animals. In my biology textbook I read of a lizard population in California which split and became two isolated populations which have become separate species. This is specialization and the formation of new species, I do not believe life came about from natural processes, and I do not believe that a lizard population will ever not be a lizard population.

Comment Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score 1) 243

Kjella, I really enjoyed your comment. You have much more understanding of the Christian worldview. The problem is that when you come at evidence with preconceived notions, which we all do, then evidence will be interpreted based on those preconceptions. If you believe that only natural explanations are valid, then you will interpret the evidence to support a natural answer. If, however, you believe that there is a God who exists outside of our space/time continuum, then the evidence will be used to construct a model reflecting such intervention.

Both creation and evolution advocates exercise faith in ideas they deem true, and will cut off people from the dialogue when they disagree. On the creation side, it happens when you discredit what we see as documentation passed from the creator. On the evolution side, it is when there is mention that it may not have been natural processes or that evolution does not extend past limits of kinds of animals.

I had a friend who did not believe in God posit this to his biology professor, that the evolution community, at least in behavior, acted just like a religion. There are unproven things taught as doctrine, and any who disagree with this doctrine will be excommunicated or removed from the community where consensus will be derived. He said his professor conceded that it was true, but that they were right so it was ok.

This is not reason vs religion, it's a battle of worldviews or presuppositions.

Comment Re:I am reminded of pigs and engineers here (Score 2) 593

Where it seems to turn into evidence against the theory is when we find multiple examples of a particular animal with gaps on both sides. I believe Darwin even said he expected that over the next hundred years we would find a continuum of fossils. What we find is several of a particular type and then several of another type with a considerable leap in between. For example, I would expect that we would have T-Rex fossils (which we do) and a continuum of fossils evolutionarily precluding and following T-Rex. If we had only found one T-Rex fossil then it would not seem to argue against evolution. The more T-Rex fossils we find without finding any evolutionary ancestors or descendants, however, begins to point to the fact that they may not have existed.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor

Working...