Chris

@xaduurv

Don't get me wrong, it warms my black heart to see so many people who understand what "theory" means in science. I wish I had a few of you in my class when I taught biology. (Or maybe you should have been teaching!)

There's some ludicrous things being said, however. Yes, the highest goal of science is to develop a theory that explains observations and allows for testable predictions. That does not mean that scientists don't care about facts, and it certainly doesn't mean there is no such thing as scientific fact.

Here, unsupported objects fall toward the center of the Earth. That is a fact. Throughout the universe, objects exert on attractive force on each other. That is a fact. You could call them both "facts of gravity." Our current theory of gravity explains these facts (to a point, obviously it remains incomplete.)

Populations of organisms change over time. That is a fact. Organisms pass on their traits to their offspring. That is a fact. Mutations occur during DNA copying. That is a fact. The current theory of evolution integrates these facts and explains why evolution occurs. (It's also incomplete, but the main disagreements now are over whether natural selection or more neutral processes like genetic drift are more important.)

Facts are the raw material of science, like bricks in a theoretical skyscraper.

Also this game looks pretty good.

@(Unverified)

Yes, if by states' rights you mean states' rights to own slaves.

The Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade the Confederate Congress from denying "the right of property in negro slaves." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution#Slavery

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said in a famous speech that "slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the Confederacy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens#Vice_President_of_the_Confederacy

Discouting the importance of slavery in the Civil War is baseless revisionism. Maybe the rebels of the South were visionary heroes in some ways (and I think that's a stretch), but they were still motivated largely by their desire to treat an entire race of human beings like farm animals.

Falco is an Ayn Rand fan.

As far as I could tell with almost no effort, this game is based on an educational TV show with the same title. The show is a puzzle adventure on a global scale which will reawaken your childlike sense of wonder and curiosity, apparently. There's very little on the game.

Here's a link: http://ishop.tbs.co.jp/tbs/org/variety/jump_kagaku/

Whoops, you weren't even the one who said that! I'm sorry!

I fail the internet this morning.

Man, that was a long post. Maybe you're right about my having a miserable life, gst. :)

First, please note that I did not "reduce" religion to "wicked and hateful." I merely said that a certain religion (Christianity) is wicked and hateful. That doesn't mean it can't be other things, including uplifting and inspirational to many believers.

Second, while your observations about the average person are probably correct (if not a little cynical), please note that I did not anywhere in that post attack religious people. I attacked religion itself. That religious people are on the whole oblivious of the wickedness and hatred (I don't want to become fixed on these words, but I'll use them for now) should not be surprising. We're often blind to the flaws in our most cherished beliefs.

I don't doubt that people would find something else to base their bigotry on if there were no religion. I also never alluded to that in any way. I simply referred to religion as hateful and wicked. That's all.

Christianity is wicked because it holds that all humans are born flawed and unworthy of consideration. They don't become deserving of their place alongside their beloved Creator unless he chooses to make them so, on a whim. That's wicked.

It's hateful because of the contempt it shows for humanity, for the reason above. We are vile, sinful, flawed creatures. That's a disgusting viewpoint to me.

Of course, you'd be right to point out that actual believers hold to those points to varying degrees. But the vast majority believe in a heaven, and that not everyone's gonna get to go there. Besides which, I'm talking the religion, not the religious.

As for "shooting the messenger," it's not a big deal, but I was just referring to the way you referred to attacking religion as "trendy" and the actions of someone with a miserable life, etc. (It sounded kind of snarky to me besides. Maybe I misunderstood.) Attacking religion is necessary. Many modern religions explicitly make humanity the willing slaves of a celestial overlord, whose appeasement often hinges on the destruction of millions of people.

Oh, and Left Behind sucks. :)

Astutely observed.

Because dismissing the tenets of Christianity is the same thing as dismissing Christians, and pointing out the problems in a wicked (and hateful) religion makes one hateful oneself.

Talk about shooting the messenger.

You do make that game sound interesting, but then you also describe the Left Behind books as "good," so I'm a bit doubtful about your judgment.

The best religious game I have ever played, by far, is Okami.

Honestly I don't mind seeing these people do harm to their cause. I happen to think Christianity is a wicked religion in all its versions, but the fundagelical stripe given it by the Kirk Cameron crowd is the very worst. It's so explicitly anti-human (we are all damned from birth, and God might save us if he feels like it. Lovely guy, that God.)