StrangeSox

Either way you approach the question kap posed, the answer is "no". For evolution and creationism as explanations for the diversity of life, no, they do not ultimately go back to the same starting point. I think that's self-evident and won't expand. For the epistemology behind each viewpoint, again, the answer is no. ToE is held as provisionally true because it is the current best explanation we have for the diversity of life. This was initially based on some evidence and a lot of good reasoning when Darwin first wrote Origin of Species; since then, tens of thousands of scientists have researched the issue for over 150 years and have found more and more evidence to support, modify and expand the ToE to what we have today. Noting again that these theories and explanations are held as provisionally true, not absolutely true. On the other hand, creationism arises from a literal reading of the Bible (or Koran and probably other versions of creationism I'm unfamiliar with). It holds that species were specially created and (depending on the flavor of creationism) have only undergone a small amount of evolution, but certainly not speciation or "molecules to man" evolution. These viewpoints are not arrived at through meticulous research over decades--in fact, they are held in direct contradiction of such research. Special creation is held as absolute truth based on faith in a literal reading of creation stories in scripture. The concepts of truth and knowledge are markedly different from the manner in which science is conducted. I think Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong" and Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in my Garage" illustrate my point far better than I could. edit: grammar fix.

I still don't understand where this team came from or what they did with the April-May 2010 White Sox. but I love it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 11:54 AM) This is bulls***. Just last week the chicagobreakingnews.com website had 2 stories about OLD black men shooting YOUNG black intruders. I think if anything it's the weak, defenseless old man taking on young criminals in an old school way. THAT's the catch to the story. Read the article. then read Y's first post. That they're illegal brown people was used as justification.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 12:18 PM) what? a scientist has "faith" that his/her hypothesis is correct, despite the fact that it could be proven incorrect. Science might be more "factual" than spiritual belief, but at least with some aspects of sciene, it's still believing in something that cannot be proven. Not unless you go about redefining words and bastardizing the word "faith" into something meaningless. You come up with a hypothesis and you test it; you don't just write a pretty argument and assume it's true. And scientists are very much aware of the idea of provisional truths and changing paradigms. No one thinks they've got it all figured out; it's all just working models that approximate reality reasonably well, all subject to replacement by something new or modification by some novel, unexplainable aspect of nature. This is not, in any way, comparable to faith. IMO you weaken the idea of faith by trying to tie it to a methodology like science. Faith isn't about hypothesis testing. edit: This is not "faith", nor does it go back to creationism at the end of it all.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 12:11 PM) I think you're only using one definition of creationism. Perhaps some believe that the elements of life were created (and didn't just exist out of thin nothingness) and evolution took over from there. The Lisa Simpson Little House of Horrors theory of life if you will. That's not creationism as it's typically used or promoted by places like AiG or DI. I've already hit on the idea of theistic evolution and how it is not anywhere near Bible-as-literal-truth Creationism.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 11:49 AM) Again, race has zero to do with the shooting, as does the legal/illegal status, because the shooter couldn't possibly know they were illegal. The fact that they are illegal aliens simply means that they should be charged, documented, jailed, then shipped out. I would tend to agree that it didn't motivate the shooting, but it certainly motivates the reactions. The article wouldn't make an issue of it otherwise. Others in this thread wouldn't use it in their justification of the shooting. I think it is perfectly legitimate to say that race/immigrant status plays some role on how people view this issue. You don't need to be a KKK member to have race impact your judgments.

No, it's just stupid. Oh, and illegal. Certainly a worse crime than theft. So is it cart blanche on the old guy now? I don't know that race played in role in the old guy's decision, but I certainly think it plays a role in the reaction. If it didn't, it wouldn't have been mentioned.

These things seem to be reported more frequently when it involves illegal brown people. Kinda the opposite effect of the media's attention on missing/murdered pretty white girls vs. missing/murdered anyone else.

Being stupid, committing a non-lethal, non-violent crime (and being brown!) means you've given up your right to life, I guess.

Just a hunch: This isn't as much of a story if it's two white guys.

Science is a process or a method, not something to have "faith" in.

Keep dehumanizing and legitimizing killing! You're begging to be godwin'd.

Unless he's playing humpty dumpty from Through the Looking Glass again, there's only one way to take that. Words have meaning, and his statement is unequivocally false given standard definitions. Creationism actively denies evolution. Theistic evolution is the position of integrating science with a personal faith. TE is much closer to philosophical naturalism/ evolution without gods than it is to creationism. I'll point to Ken Miller again. He was a key witness at the Dover, PA trials as well as several other court cases around the country. He's a devout Catholic, but he's also a biologist who accepts evolution. He's much closer to PZ Meyers, atheist/biologist/douchebag than he is to Ken Ham or the people at the Discovery Institute.

The only way to make that point is to ignore decades of what creationism has stood for. It means individual species specially created, perhaps within the last 6000-10000 years, no macroevolution, things created pretty much as they are now. That's a very far leap from theistic evolution, which posits evolution as scientists understand it as a 'tool' for God. eg Ken Miller vs. Ken Ham.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 07:21 AM) I understand what Kap is getting at. For open minded people, there is usually a recognition that evolution exists, and God exists, and if you work them back far enough, they meet. Problem is, many people aren't that open minded, so its either "creation doesn't exist because God did everything" or "God doesn't exist because nature did everything". Theistic evolution =/= creationism, though.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 09:22 PM) At the end of it all, doesn't creationism and evolution end up being the same? Very simple, very clear answer: no.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 11:20 PM) If your faith in God is threatened by science, then your faith is probably pretty weak, which is a personal problem if you ask me. that's a pretty good statement.

There's no reason to shoot at them while they're fleeing. It's a legally, and imo morally, indefensible act. I have to ask at what point do we value property, value things enough that we're willing to kill someone over them.

HE GONE! Nice sweep, great CG.

one more to go!

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) Not downplaying it at all. I have the opinion that I don't think its a big loss. You have a different opinion. That doesn't make you right and mean I am trying to downplay something. Had Hudson been in the rotation the first half instead of Peavy I don't think our record would be any different. If you think an emotional leader is worth 16M than so be it. Peavy was awful for the first couple of months, but returned to being dominant in June. You can't just look at his entire season record and say "no big loss". Most of the pitchers on this staff are garbage if you're going by that metric, and we should be glad Quentin's been out of the lineup.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 11:00 AM) I'd agree. It looked like we were seeing Peavy go on one of his vaunted runs. He was what, 4-1 with a sub 2.5 ERA in his last 5 games or something like that? Lowest ERA in the AL in June I'm pretty sure.

My sources* told me on June 1st that Lebron was a lock and laid out this entire circus, even called the media special on ESPN. *my dog

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) Lilliputian I already ™'d that

QUOTE (SHIPPS @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 08:30 AM) Twitter is one of the worst things to happen to humanity. fify