03.30
You hear phrases like ‘It’s better because it’s free’ and ‘superior development model’ thrown about a lot. Here is how I would objectively calculate the quality of a piece of software…
Q = (Plan Quality * Management Quality * Programmer Quality * Programmer Quantity) / Project Difficulty
As you can see the quality of a piece of software is largely related to the initial plan, the organisation and the quantity and quality of the developers involved. You’ll note that the eventual license the software is release under is not featured here.
Here is how the quality of a program is measured in the FOSS world…
if (Is Open Source) {
Q = High Quality;
} else {
Q= Low Quality;
}
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is wrong with the second method, which is more akin to the creation science method of ‘I’ve got a truth, lets find some stuff to fit it’ approach.
It is not better because it’s free.
Sure, cost can be factored in to the above, as if you have two programs that are nearly alike with one costing £5,000 and the other one free, but then it is simply a judgement call on is the increase in utility worth the price difference.
The problem with free software advocacy is that the actual quality of the software is secondary to the cause. They don’t want you to be using the best software, they want you to be using the software that subscribes to the correct ideology.
Not that there is anything wrong with believing in a cause – I am a vegetarian – but there is a difference between admitting that your position is ideological, and pretending that your ideology is reality. I don’t suggest that vegetarian food is much, much tastier than non-vegetarian food, but that is what the FOSS community essentially does. They decide what is best on ideological grounds and then find the facts to support their pre-determined conclusion.
Personally I use the best tool for the job, and if you want to use the most ideological sound tool for the job then fine, but don’t pretend that it is actually better just because it happens to be GPL’d.
Hello. I’ve been enjoying your blog recently. You certainly have the FOSS crowd figured out. It’s been years since I argued with the FOSS retards, but the group mentality always remains the same. Being mostly a cult for angry teenagers with no friends, they usually give up Linux when they grow older and lose patience with it. But then, there’s a sucker born every minute, and there are always new retards to join the ranks.
But I’d like to discuss something else if I will be so lucky as to find a partner. You wrote,
“the creation science method of ‘I’ve got a truth, lets find some stuff to fit it’ approach”
Have you considered that the same is equally true to evolution science? Evolution is as much a belief (“theory”, if you insist on a science-y term) as creationism. I think people who subscribe to evolution as a fact are blind followers of science fads, in the same way that people who subscribe to creationism as fact are blind followers of religion. You don’t want to be a blind follower, now, do you?
And a second point,
“Not that there is anything wrong with believing in a cause — I am a vegetarian”
I see vegetarians as people who would like to pretend they are no better than a chicken or a cow. That is absurd. Why would you want to think that? I hereby give you permission to enjoy your superiority over food that is masquerading as a life form. You might gain some weight but you’ll have more fun.
“Evolution is as much a belief (“theory”, if you insist on a science-y term) as creationism.”
Except for the pesky fact that there is no actual evidence supporting creationism (thus you cannot call it a scientific theory). ‘God did it’ is not scientifically rigorous. Evolution has been observed and proved, it’s just the macroscopic/microscopic thing now and this can easily be proved in that I can speak English but have no hope of reading German, despite the fact that if there was ‘no such thing as macroscopic evolution’ I wouldn’t be able to.
We used to believe in the firmament and the heliocentric universe because they were the best theories at the time and they were not simply disproved and discarded, they were instead replaced by a better model. Evolution may be displaced (just as Newton’s Laws are actually wrong) but it will not simply be discarded because some religious people feel it is problematic.
“I see vegetarians as people who would like to pretend they are no better than a chicken or a cow. That is absurd. Why would you want to think that?”
So because something isn’t human it has no feelings, rights and should be shown no regard? It is exactly that attitude that gives us the holocaust and slavery. Anyone who has owned a pet dog realises animals are not just automatons and can feel pain and get bored and lonely.
Anyway I suspect you are trolling.
“Anyway I suspect you are trolling.”
Said the FOSS cultist to the UI guy. If you get my point.
How do you stylize parts of your comments? I’d like to do that too.
+ “Except for the pesky fact that there is no actual evidence supporting creationism (thus you cannot call it a scientific theory).”
There isn’t any actual evidence supporting evolution, either. There’s a lot of hand waving that favors nicely with people who wish to reject creationism. But real observed evidence, in the strict scientific sense: No. Or do you mean to say that you’ve observed millions of years of life on Earth, before you decided evolution was fact?
Now look at what you just argued: That your lack of knowledge of the German language, to you that proves evolution. Seriously, what? Surely you can see that it takes a leap of faith to see this as proof of evolution.
And that was really my point, that evolution is a religion as much as creationism, in the sense that not all the facts are there — really, very few facts are there, on either side — so you have to take a leap of faith and believe that it is true.
With that in mind, wouldn’t it be nice of you to give the other side some more respect?
+ So because something isn’t human it has no feelings, rights and should be shown no regard? Anyone who has owned a pet dog realises animals are not just automatons and can feel pain and get bored and lonely.
I am talking about food; your pet dog is not food. Your argument is that because some animals are not food, then it is not ok to eat those animals that really are food. That argument doesn’t make sense. But it looks like this is the end of the line for this particular argument:
+ It is exactly that attitude that gives us the holocaust and slavery.
You flash the Nazi card so soon? Tsk, tsk, what would Godwin say.
“There isn’t any actual evidence supporting evolution, either. There’s a lot of hand waving that favors nicely with people who wish to reject creationism.”
There is an enormous weight of evidence to support evolution. Take dogs, all genetically evolved from wolves yet they have been selectively bred for certain traits and as such you have a great dane and a poodle with the same genetic heritage. It’s proof that species can change over time. The argument is macro/micro which my language example was meant to demonstrate – tiny changes over a long enough time period make something entirely different. There is a colossal weight of evidence it’s only most people supporting ID choose to ignore it and dismiss it all as lies with the wave of a hand.
Also it is entirely irrelevant how flimsy (you think) the evidence is, there is absolutely zero evidence for creationism apart from the bible. Not a single thing. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. You go with the theory that appears the most credible and creationism is simply not it. In fact it is not even a theory as it has a distinct meaning in science.
The ‘Intelligent Design’ agenda is being pushed from a religious standpoint, not a scientific standpoint, because the implications of evolution are incompatible with a lot of religious teachings. I mean, come on, it essentially claims the fossil record is planted by satan, radioactive decay does not exist (despite being admissible in court) and the world is only 6,000 years old. “Ignore those proto-human skeletal remains, it’s satans work”. Yeah, it’s not science.
You want to disprove evolution? Fine. provide a more plausible model with actual evidence and then you may get taken seriously.
“I am talking about food; your pet dog is not food. Your argument is that because some animals are not food, then it is not ok to eat those animals that really are food. That argument doesn’t make sense.”
What is the difference between ‘pet’ and ‘food’? It seems entirely arbitrary and cultural. If you can accept that your dog deserves to have a nice life and doesn’t deserve to be abused horribly then killed then why does this not extend to cover all animals? Do you have a list of animals that are food/pets? Would it be ok to keep a dog in a 2 foot square box for 2 years provided I ate it afterwards? Again the distinction between ‘pet’ and ‘food’ is entirely in your own mind, either all animal abuse is ok or none of it is. Or is it only once you have an emotional attachment to an animal is it bad to abuse it?
You didn’t tell me how I can use styles to emphasize quotes. Trying to keep me at a disadvanage, eh?
+ “There is an enormous weight of evidence to support evolution.”
Only in your mind, my friend.
I don’t see how wolves turning into dogs, or farm pigs turning into wild boar, including physical changes to the shape of the head, within a few weeks (!), after released into the wild, is absolute proof of evolution. If you believe in evolution, sure it can be your proof. Could you not equally believe that wolves and dogs and boar and pigs were created/designed to adapt to either a wild or a domestic lifestyles? It’s not like there is proof (REAL proof) on either side to support either argument. It’s just a matter of which explanation appeals to you more. Or in other words, it’s a matter of faith.
I also still fail to understand how you not learning German is any indication of evolution. It is human nature to divide into factions and adopt characteristics to differentiate. Characteristics like language and flags. It is a leap of faith to assume this human nature implies anything about evolution. Because you can equally make a leap of faith to claim that man was created/designed to have this nature (tower of babel).
Another point to consider is that unlike the Newton’s laws that you mentioned, evolution does not make it possible to explain why things ended up the way they are, or where things are headed next. What kind of science is that? Quantum physics exists in a realm entirely strange to the human experience, yet still scientists were able to devise probability rules and make sense of it. With evolution, you only have guesses and faith-based explanation, something along this line: Because things ended up this way, it must mean (without any doubt!) that this was the optimal evolutionary path for those things to take. That’s the kind of science that it is: A weak one.
I completely agree that creationism is based on faith and not backed by any evidence at all — the bible (a story) can’t possibly count as evidence. You don’t have to keep discrediting the other side, because we already agree about its religious nature. I am however trying to argue that evolution is just as religious. You don’t need a god to be religious; you merely need to be able to accept a theory as truth without any skepticism.
And wouldn’t you want to see religious people show each other more respect?
+ The ‘Intelligent Design’ agenda is being pushed from a religious standpoint, not a scientific standpoint
Now you’re being disingenuous. First of all, evolution is pushed primarily for political reasons, with science being merely the vehicle. Initially it was a good idea: The church with its backwards perceptions was outdated, and evolution was the right weapon to fight back. By now we’ve clearly won against the church, and that’s a good thing. But the supporters of evolution are still so afraid of the church, they won’t allow for any room to debate. Tell me this please: Which is the one more likely to get fired — the teacher talking about evolution, or the teacher talking about creationism?
+ What is the difference between ‘pet’ and ‘food’? It seems entirely arbitrary and cultural.
And that’s just the way it is, always was, and hopefully always will be. Although this world is going crazy so fast that my head spins. I hope if we “devolve” into a culture that refrains from eating animals, it’s long after the worms have feasted on my decaying flesh.
+ Again the distinction between ‘pet’ and ‘food’ is entirely in your own mind, either all animal abuse is ok or none of it is.
Or maybe some middle ground? No? This is something I’ve noticed about liberals: Inability to grasp the shades of gray of our world and our reality.
Evolution has been observed on a bacterial level, it has been proven on a normal level with the wolf->dog example, the only contentious issue is (as I have been saying) the macroscopic vs microscopic debate. Like it or not it is science and most scientists consider it science. It’s observable and reproducible and the only people who ever seem to have doubts about it are fundamentalist religious people, in fact the anti-evolution anti-intellectual movement is relatively new and has fabricated this ‘controversy’ where none actually exists.
“And that’s just the way it is, always was, and hopefully always will be.”
I don’t know about you but I like to have a clear cut decision making process when it comes to ethics and the ability to discern between the two. Middle ground is great, just define what it actually is. Again: Would it be ok to keep a dog in a 2 foot square box for 2 years provided I ate it afterwards? Yes or no?
BTW if you want to style you can use HMTL, like <em>italic</em>
How long would you need to let bacteria sit in the jar before it spontaneously develops something as complex as the human eye?
My guess is forever.
You bash the other side for being anti-intellectual. But when I point out difficulties and doubts about the theory of evolution, you ignore them wholesale and respond that scientists say it’s true, and that’s quite enough for you.
Like someone saying the priests told him that creationism was true, no?
As for studies. Earlier you argued that human beings talking English in one geographic location and German in another, is proof for you that the theory of evolution is correct. Then I submit to you that evolution scientists are as irrational as you about this. They, too, consider questionable “findings” as proof of evolution theory. And bit by bit, study by study, eventually you have a body of scientific “evidence.” And then you point to that and say — Look, it’s scientific fact.
Like someone someone saying the bible told him that creationism was true, no?
How can you fail to see these similarities? It’s a rhetorical question. Of course, I know how you do it: By pretending that your evolution science is actually solid.
Oh well. I guess there is little point in keeping this up. I merely wished to suggest that your theory isn’t so solid and scientific as you think, and does not justify ridicule of the opposing point of view. But I guess for a man who crusades for animal rights, it is important to feel superior to his fellow men.
I enjoyed this argument, I think overall we handled ourselves quite well in discussing these controversial topics.
Would it be ok to keep a dog in a 2 foot square box for 2 years provided I ate it afterwards? Yes or no?
In our culture we don’t abuse or eat dogs — so no, it’s not ok.
Thanks for telling me about the (em) style!
I am not saying evolution is 100% correct, only it is the best theory that fits the facts. “God did it” isn’t even a theory and I am sure that this has been applied to science for years (lightening, weather, natural disasters etc). Sure you have a problem with macroscopic evolution, fine, but until a better theory comes along it’s the best we have. If you’d said ‘Newton’s laws are wrong, god does it’ you’d be ridiculed. If you present relativity as the reason then you’d succeed and supersede newton.
Ultimately the creationist argument “God did it” is a roadblock to progress, instead we should strive to find the real reason as once you attribute it to a deity, where do you go from there? If science took that approach with electricity we couldn’t even have this discussion now and I am pretty sure that there were plenty of people saying that at the time.
Essentially the concept of ‘God’ exists outside of science and is fundamentally incompatible with it. It doesn’t even matter if you are correct, it still isn’t science.
“I don’t see how wolves turning into dogs, or farm pigs turning into wild boar, including physical changes to the shape of the head, within a few weeks (!), after released into the wild, is absolute proof of evolution.”
Who said it was absolute proof? It’s still observable, repeatable and verifiable – which makes it “science”. It’s also another fact that fits the theory of evolution – that species can and do change over time. Evolution has evidence on its side – it’s not conclusive, but at least there is evidence.
Where’s the evidence for Creationism? “God did it” is not evidence.
“How long would you need to let bacteria sit in the jar before it spontaneously develops something as complex as the human eye?”
You do know you’re rolling out the usual cliched arguments used to try to discredit the theory of evolution? First up; “Evolution is only a theory”, then; a new take on “What use is half an eye?”, including the usual exaggerated leap from microbes to higher life forms to try to drive the point home. What’s next? “Darwin didn’t win a Nobel prize!”?
It’s not up to the supporters of evolution to prove it’s right. It’s up to the creationists to prove it wrong, and they can’t. Scientists can’t yet prove Darwin wrong.
I get the feeling you guys are making an effort to miss my point. I can experiment with Newton’s equations with a rock and a stopwatch. I can tell ahead of time what the results are going to be, and then I can verify them.
I don’t object to aspects of evolution that can meet this scientific requirement. For example natural selection, specifically the aspects that are concerned with distribution of characteristics in a population. It stands to reason that if you kill all people with blue eyes, you’re going to see a lot less blue eyes in the population.
What I do object to is when people use something that is provable, like the distribution of characteristics in a population, to assert that it therefore must also be possible for individuals to do fantastic things like spontaneously develop new characterstics and new organs. Or for simple single cells to spontaneously develop a reproductive system, and a wonderfully complex one, at that.
That’s what you’ve been doing here. When you say “not saying evolution is 100% correct” or “it’s not conclusive, but at least there is evidence” you’re giving the fantastic ideas a free pass because the very basic ideas of the theory are reasonable and do stand to scrutiny.
In this respect I view your stance towards evolution as something that is based on faith, or wishful thinking, rather than a scientic approach. And this is why I equate it to a religion. You can go on with your handwaving, but it can’t change this simple truth.
I find it amusing evolution is constantly singled out as “bad science”. It’s backed with the same type of data and scientific processes as other fields, but religious nuts aren’t harping over quantum mechanics or astronomy with anywhere near the fervor. If you want to equate evolution with “faith”, you need to include the whole shabang. That’s my problem with these debates. I’d have a much easier time following the argument if the other side stopped being selective and called into question the entirety of science. Paradoxically, doing so would actually be more scientific.
Where is the ‘controversy’ on string theory as that is wwaaayyyy more out there than evolution in terms of lack of evidence and testability? Or is it fine as long as you don’t step on the major religions toes?
It’s backed with the same type of data and scientific processes as other fields
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
(My turn to make a reference to WWII.)
Where is the ‘controversy’ on string theory
Now your comeback is that if other fields of science are given a free pass in spite of little evidence, then why am I picking on evolution. That is completely irrelevant, and moreover reaffirms what I keep saying. You take evolution on faith, not on evidence.
I will point out two glaring differences though.
1. No one pretends that string theory is absolutely right, in spite of lacking evidence.
2. No one is fired for saying string theory lacks evidence and for contemplating other ideas.
“What I do object to is when people use something that is provable, like the distribution of characteristics in a population, to assert that it therefore must also be possible for individuals to do fantastic things like spontaneously develop new characterstics and new organs.”
We’ve already established that changes in species on a short time-scale is observable, repeatable and verifiable, even in complex vertebrates. Evolution on a large scale happens over periods of time that no single human generation (or even multiple generations) can observe. And it’s not just one set of evidence – masses of evidence in countless fields shows that evolution is the most plausible method for the creation of the myriad forms of life on this rock. Have you got a better explanation? That isn’t supernatural?
“Or for simple single cells to spontaneously develop a reproductive system, and a wonderfully complex one, at that.”
Single cells just use binary fission – they split in two. You must already know that? Reproductive systems only come into play in more complex organisms. Another play from the creationists that’s wrong – people who think evolution is correct (carefully avoiding the word “believe” there – belief implies “faith” and I don’t want to go there, either) don’t think that the huge changes you’re talking about are sudden or spontaneous. It’s not a case of amoeba on Monday, complex mammal by Saturday. The changes are tiny, and take place over millions of years.
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
(My turn to make a reference to WWII.)”
The actual quote from Goebbels, including the bits people inexplicably miss out – “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
[Emphasis mine] Take that any way you want.
“1. No one pretends that string theory is absolutely right, in spite of lacking evidence.”
Even Darwin had doubts about his own theory, as all scientists should. It’s just that evolution (or natural selection if you prefer), is the most complete theory, that fits what facts we have, that we’ve got so far.
String Theory (It should really be String Hypothesis) is one of the branches of science (another is astro-physics), where scientists get a free pass to just make shit up because it helps explain something else. See “dark matter”.
Biology is not one of those sciences. Anything that’s observable under a microscope or bigger, and inside the edge of the atmosphere, no such free pass exists.
If you doubt the veracity of evolution, good for you – without scepticism, without people who will say “No, that’s not right.” we’d still be living on a flat earth that the sun orbits.
Try to come up with a new and plausible theory, then prove it. Don’t just claim there is no evidence for the theory you disagree with, simply because you say there’s no proof. Instead of simply denying the evidence for evolution, prove it wrong.
This whole storm over evolution is simply people who cannot countenance the fact that the story of Creation in the Old Testament is not historical fact. If evolution proves Creation isn’t true, it opens the door to other things in the Bible being proved untrue.
Ted, this is getting Tedious.
You still don’t get that I’m not trying to prove either evolution or creationism. I am only trying to point out that there are holes in the theory, and those holes are swept under the rug by people who claim the science is rock solid.
The dog/wolf example is hardly evidence, as dogs and wolves do have the same number of chromosomes and only a 0.02% deviation in DNA. This can only prove variance happens according to chromosomes. That’s fine by me, chromosomes are real science.
But what isn’t fine is to pretend that this evidence can explain how a series of random errors while copying DNA, over millions of years, has resulted in the development of an inter-dependent and complicated network of organs. Where is the evidence to directly support such an extraordinary claim?
I am not a religious nut and I do support continued research into biology and the way reproduction systems work. But as long as that research remains incomplete, let us not pretend that we absolutely know everything for sure and have all the answers.
Seriously…
Seeriioouuslyy…
SERIOUSLY! Has this turned into a “religion vs. atheism” discussion?
Will you PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF (or lack of. whatever suits ya’.) GOD. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE end this?
plus.. it’s boring to read. you’ve hit the classic spot of every discussion of this kind, where one part refuses to understand what the other part says. (goes both ways btw.)
You still don’t get that I’m not trying to prove either evolution or creationism. I am only trying to point out that there are holes in the theory, and those holes are swept under the rug by people who claim the science is rock solid.
Nobody here has ever claimed the science is rock solid and the theory is sound. Nobody. In fact no self respecting scientist would ever claim any theory (or even law) is 100% factual. Newton’s laws, as I have pointed out, have been proved wrong. What else is wrong?
let us not pretend that we absolutely know everything for sure and have all the answers.
Exactly. But then don’t bring up ‘God did it’ as if that is somehow a viable answer. Here’s the thing:
ID/Creationism belongs in philisophical/religious discussions. IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Evolution does not belong in philisophical/religious discussions. IT IS SCIENCE.
If you fail to see the distinction here and thus feel the need to somehow compare them then you are quite frankly an idiot. Sure you may believe God zapped it all into place a few thousand years ago but I am more interested in real scientists doing some real science to actually find out what happened, even if they do make some mistakes on the way. That’s the way these things work. Yet for some inexplicable reason there is a groundswell of total morons who want to ‘teach the controversy’ with utterly no interest in real science, only promoting a religious agenda.
Kerberos, it seems we’ve hit the point where you run out of reasonable things to say, so you resort to lying, using caps locks, name calling, and arguing in circles.
Nobody here has ever claimed the science is rock solid and the theory is sound.
Lies. You claimed that just a few posts ago:
Evolution has been observed and proved, it’s just the macroscopic/microscopic thing now and this can easily be proved
What, you thought I forgot because it was a couple of days ago? Just because I am not so gullible that I blindly believe fantasies about spontaneous random development of organs, doesn’t mean that I am stupid. Or maybe we have to argue if “can easily be proved” is close enough to “rock solid”?
You also said,
There is a colossal weight of evidence
So now we have “can easily be proved” and “a colossal weight of evidence”. Getting closer to saying rock solid?
Besides, it’s not like dogs deviating from wolves by 0.02% of their DNA, in terms of thicker fur and such trivial bits, is any proof of the origin of species. After all their internal anatomy is 100% the same, is it not. So is the fact that we are all slightly different from our parents in eye color and such, is that another absolute proof of the origin of species? Don’t be ridiculous.
When I point out these huge failures of your so-called observed evidence, you alternate between ignoring it, and pointing out to other weak sciences:
string theory as that is wwaaayyyy more out there than evolution in terms of lack of evidence and testability
And as for,
but I am more interested in real scientists doing some real science to actually find out what happened
I am interested in that too. I guess you missed the last paragraph of my earlier post, it was more important to come up with insults?
Three points to conclude this argument:
1. All in all, you’ve now basically DEVOLVED into acting like a fanboy for the theory of evolution. This again proves my point that you see it as your faith, and you respond emotionally to any threats on your faith.
2. All I did was ask you to respect people who have other beliefs that are just as nonsensical as yours. But I guess you just can’t ask a religious fanatic to do that, can you.
3. At this point I would be content if can just admit to yourself and to me that this theory has huge holes but you still prefer it over creationism. Of course this would be an admission that you take evolution on faith and not on evidence, and then I would win the argument. Can’t have that, no sir.