AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Swoosh

form_srcid: Swoosh

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Swoosh

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Swoosh%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2005/10/11 23:28:42, Link
Author: Swoosh
I think you're on to something.   Lately, I've been pondering a fudge to the scientific nomenclature, differentiating its terminology from the vernacular terms.  Which is snob for saying, let's change it from "theory" to something else that people won't mistake for "hunch".

All over the media, I see the term misused.  Even some scientists refer to their ideas as theories when I don't think it meets the criteria.  The ID people are clearly capitalizing on this fuzziness.  Why give them the option?  Why not calibrate the terminology?

Hypothesis:  this one can stay.  Its sufficiently narrow that it can't be confused with anything else.  This applies to one experiment, one piece of data only.

Theory: Demote this term.  Use it when you've got a collection of data that you want to explain, but aren't reasonably confident of your explanation.  Its somewhat less than what we now call a theory, but more than just a hypothesis.  Its a hypothesis that explains a bunch of hypotheses, and has yet to run the gauntlet of scientific rigor.  There is an acknowlgeable chance that it will be subject to major modification or complete rejection.  This puts the term more in harmony with the vernacular.

xxxx:  We used to call this a theory, but since that was too confusing and exploitable, its time to change the term. It refers to a sort of meta-explanation.  Its beyond a reasonable doubt, and has run the gauntlet of scientific examination.  Its not really a law, per se, because the explanation is still subject to minor modification.  "The Germ XXXX of disease."  "The XXXX of Relativity."  "Evolutionary XXXX."

Law:  This one can also stay.  The law of gravity, as generally understood: Objects are attracted towards each others center of mass.  Quantify it mathematically if appropriate.  A law is a sort of "specific generalization" that can't realistically be called into question.

So the question then becomes, what do we call what we currently call a theory?  I am wracking my brain but can't come up with the right word.  Meta something?  Maybe something in latin?

Date: 2005/10/12 06:37:13, Link
Author: Swoosh
Hmmm.. well, no.  You can assume you are suffering from Intelligent Amnesia.  DNA testing and fingerprint analysis have no weight to prove otherwise.  Besides, most of America believes that those methods are full of holes anyway.

Date: 2005/10/12 22:36:56, Link
Author: Swoosh
The Dogma of Relativity.
The Dogma of Evolution.
The Dogma of Karma.
The Dogma of Intelligent Design.

You can see where it fits some better than others.  I tend to think of Dogma as more an ideological strange attractor than a scientific explanation based on evidence and research.  Color me confused by your use.

Solution is a good start.  Although the term reminds me of "solved", like you would use it in math.  Maybe metatheory?  That would simply the textbook/website updating process.  :D

Date: 2005/10/12 22:49:01, Link
Author: Swoosh
Lol.  I love the open letter aspect, but Hovind is playing with a stacked (though not nearly full) deck.  

Dogs, wolves and the like are just variations on a Kind.  There is no evidence that a "dog came from a banana" or quack anything of the sort.  To say that the mooooo similarities between dogs and wolves quack implies that humans and apes are related is mooooOOoooo not supported by any evidence.  Quack.

Further, there is no evidencequack proving that the speed of light has always been constantmooooooo.  Nobody has ever seen a star "born" baaaa-a-a-a-a and to say that astronomers know how it was quack done is a lie.  There is no evidence quackquack.

And lastly.. moooo bleaaat quack!

Evidence denied... next, please.


Date: 2005/10/13 05:43:54, Link
Author: Swoosh
Hey, I know.  How about we rent the word out to corporations, kinda like the Olympics does.

Evolution, brought to you by Coca Cola.
Yahoo! Evolution.

This way the fundies couldn't be quite so cavalier about claiming a communism-evo link.

Date: 2005/10/13 07:05:19, Link
Author: Swoosh
Snickers evolution.  Soft on the outside, crunchy on the inside.

Or we use their own words against em.

The Logos of Evolution.

Date: 2005/10/20 02:09:47, Link
Author: Swoosh
Normally, my sense of humor is pretty dry.  I'll try to jazz it up in the future so I don't puzzle you. :D

But since it seems you are under the impression that I buy Hovind's blather, please note the barnyard animal sounds scattered throughout my flimsy satire.  Also, please redirect your attention to the first sentence in my post, paying special attention to the "deck of cards" references.

For the record, I resounding reject "creation science" and its bastard progeny, ID.

Yours in methodological naturalism,

Date: 2005/10/20 03:51:14, Link
Author: Swoosh
Reading Evopeaches burbling posts is like when you have an aching tooth that you keep probing with your tongue.  It hurts, but you can't help yourself.  Someone, please, make it stop!

Date: 2005/10/20 03:54:30, Link
Author: Swoosh
Speaking of Austrailian creationists, has Ken Ham ever weighed in on the whole ID thing?

Date: 2005/10/20 04:14:34, Link
Author: Swoosh
Not to change the subject, but since you brought it up I believe that corporations and to a large extent private property are evil.  Phil Knight might be an interesting guy in the context of multinational industry, but mostly he is just another schmuck caught up in the game.  My "name" has nothing to do with Nike.  

Now back to Evopeaches regularly scheduled alcoholic, neomedieval soapbox.

Date: 2005/10/20 04:34:10, Link
Author: Swoosh
Heh. No worries at all, mate.  I almost didn't say anything, but you know how rumors can get around.  I'm just trying to cut it off at the pass. :D

BTW, I listened to the mp3s of the Callahan/Hovind debate.  #### that Hovind, he's got charisma.  Callahan, unfortunately, has all the charm of a compost heap.  Of course Callahan had better arguments, but I fear that's not enough these days.  When is the next Carl Sagan coming down the pike?  Please hurry, the nation needs you!

Date: 2005/10/20 04:40:48, Link
Author: Swoosh
Sean, I have too.  Sometimes I'm not sure what's parody and what isn't.  It took me near ten of Evopeaches posts to determine that he was serious.  Nobody that angry, bitter and persistant could do good parody.  I'm pretty sure The Ghost of Paley is a parody.  He's not at all rancorous, so its harder to tell with him.

Date: 2005/10/20 05:06:45, Link
Author: Swoosh
Socialist?  I'm not so sure.  Hunter/gatherer wannabe is more like it.  I don't get the red diaper thing.  No sweat, though, your intent is pretty clear. Unfortunately for your ego I don't feel insulted, although I'm sure if you keep trying you might actually make me cry.  Maybe if you call me enough names I will sincerely question my world view, value systems and ultimate value as a human being.

WRT to Cuba, I don't really know how they are doing.  By what criteria do we determine?  Depends on how you look at it, I guess.  They seem to be doing alright for themselves even considering the American remnants of cold-war hostility.  But they could be doing better, like any country.  Oh, and I hear You-Know-Who sent a MAJOR hurricane that way.  But it looks like his aim was off.  Or maybe he was really aiming for the American south, and just used Cuba as a  deflection point?  Kinda like a meteorological bumper-bowling. :D

Date: 2005/10/20 05:12:37, Link
Author: Swoosh
I bet that Judge Jones rules in favor of the plaintiffs.  And I raise the bet to include permanent exile from this forum.  Care to take that bet, Evopeach?

Date: 2005/10/20 05:23:19, Link
Author: Swoosh
The scary thing to me, Rawk, is that so many people don't seem to notice the caricature Creationists are making of themselves.  In looking at this whole issue, I never know whether to laugh or rampage.  I mostly try to laugh.  But egads, its haaaaaarrrrrd to keep an active sense of humor.  I mean, c'mon!  Wasn't this settled already?  Why do so many Westerners identify so intensely with their favorite mythology?  What will it take for our society to evolve past this false dichotomy?

I'm gonna come up with a creationist lightbulb joke, and post it here.  Might be awhile. :)

Date: 2005/10/21 08:22:28, Link
Author: Swoosh
In The Behe / Astrology thread, I raised EvoP's bet on the outcome of the Dover trial from 1 month absence from this forum to permanent exile.  Of course, he didn't take me up on it.  But now that I think about it, I'm relieved he won't.  Every forum needs a troll to argue with, just like every king needs a fool.  Of course, by now a real king would probably have EvoP's head in a basket--there is a point after which even a compassionate king recognizes when legitimate satire has turned into senseless hatred and abuse.

But he sure is fun to have around in a morbidly anachronistic way.  I'd only caution that we don't let him distract us from real discussion amongst ourselves.  The kingdom needs tending after all. :)

Date: 2005/10/21 14:33:46, Link
Author: Swoosh
Wow.. whudathunkit.  EvoP actually made a polite witticism.  That list is pretty funny.

And to play devil's advocate against my own team here...

What exactly is the argument about?  Maybe I'm not reading this thread thoroughly enough.  But by my understanding, SLOT has to figure in to evolution at its most basic levels.  Random mutation.  Old age and death.  Digestion.  ####, anything you look at, as long as its made up of the particles of nature is subject to SLOT.  

SLOT has to figure in on both the formation and disintegration of biological (read: atomic and molecular) systems.  Call it the flow of heat.  Call it order at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.  Restate SLOT any way you like, but no matter what it must be recognized that evolution is a natural process.  All natural processes follow the laws of physics, so SLOT must be operative in that process.  We all die eventually, a natural consequence of SLOT.  Is there some technicality I'm overlooking here?

Now, EvoP might want to argue that SLOT is You-Know-Whose punishment for sin and all that other mumbo jumbo.  If he does so, he's back in quackville.  But otherwise, I have to say I believe he's correct here.

Date: 2005/10/22 11:46:44, Link
Author: Swoosh
Its hard to be offended by such an obvious troll.  How can anyone take a guy like him seriously?  

Sure, I found him exceedingly distasteful.  And no, he didn't contribute anything to the conversation.  The one useful thing he did add to this board is a dissenting opinion.  What good is it if we all stand around agreeing with each other all the time?  Through challenge, we learn.  Unfortunately, EvoP's dissenting posts had little to do with instruction or dialogue, and vastly more to do with ego and spew.  There is a postive way to be a dissenting contributor, and EvoP amply demonstrated the polar opposite of postive contributions.

I won't say good riddance, because I personally don't mind obvious trolls.  But I'm not disappointed he is gone.  He mostly served to distract us from more productive endeavors.  Anyway, betcha he'll be back with a different name before long.  He's got too much love to share. :D

Date: 2005/10/23 11:15:37, Link
Author: Swoosh
I'm glad Orr mentioned the genomic doubling in vertrebrates.  (For one thing, I didn't know about that.  I'd like to read more about it.)  Otherwise, ID creationists would faint, come to, dust themselves off and claim proof that all the genomic "information" was front loaded--and that all the rest of diversity didn't include any new information, just fiddling with whatever was already in the genome.  Blah blah blah.  

I agree with Orr that switching probably plays a decisive role in evolutionary schema, but that its not so extreme as to overturn any current paradigms in evolutionary thought.  I wish the media would be more responsible about the way they portray scientific discoveries.

Date: 2005/10/23 14:52:47, Link
Author: Swoosh
Well, we do have Paley's Ghost to haunt us.  Even though I think he's an imposter, at least he is calm, civil and (ahem) rational.  The problem with finding a satisfying dissenter is that... well... their arguments are generally blase and flimsy.  Imagine if Behe himself was a constant voice on this forum.  We'd rip him apart, scientifically.  And he is among the best of the IDioTs.

So it goes.

Date: 2005/10/23 14:57:09, Link
Author: Swoosh
I can't think of a time in human "civilized" history that was ever dominated by "bliss and peace".  Douglas Adams was talking about me when he commented that some people think that it was a mistake to come down out of the trees in the first place.

Date: 2005/10/23 15:12:26, Link
Author: Swoosh
i guarantee that a real debate with any of the leaders of the ID movement wouldn't be quite as simple as you might think.

Oh, I'm sure of that.  I have no doubt that Behe would overwhelm me with biochemistry that is far, far out of my range.  But we do have the advantage of the web format which isn't real time, and not really a "debate" in the traditional way.  There is ample opportunity for both sides to gallop around marshalling supporting evidence.  There is time to develop arguments carefully.  

It wouldn't take all that much effort.  Look at what Rothchild (sp?) did to Behe on the stand.  I have no doubt Behe knows volumes more about biochemistry than the ACLU lawyer.  But its not the amount of information you have at your disposal, its how you arrange it, what you infer from it.

speaking of Dembski, he has dropped in to post on PT on several occasions

Really?  Too bad he doesn't stick around more.  But its not like he's genuinely interested in opinions that dissent from his own.  Behe would make a more satisfying jouster.

Date: 2005/10/24 00:39:24, Link
Author: Swoosh
Yeah.  I was sorta skimming it at the end.  What'd I overlook?

Date: 2005/10/24 11:25:52, Link
Author: Swoosh
What are you driving at?

Date: 2005/10/24 21:13:49, Link
Author: Swoosh
Every century has seen a lot of bloodshed.  There was nothing different about the 20th century.  Obviously there is nothing different about the 21st.  Religion is no preventer of war.  Technology is no provocateur.  Human nature is the same no matter what mask you wear.

Date: 2005/10/26 07:55:22, Link
Author: Swoosh
Midnightvoice pretty much said what I wanted to say, and in fewer words. But I'd like to respond briefly to a few points.

So do you agree that there is nothing inherent in Christianity that causes war?

I can't agree with that.  Believe me, I'd like to.  I think Jesus had a wonderful core message, and if Christianity's holy book was only that message I'd be inclined to agree with you.  The Old Testament, in my opinion, is what confuses people.  Its full of wiggle room and justifications and just plain ick.  So I'm forced to look at the results.  I'd like to agree with you, but I don't see how I can.

...but at least it provides (admittedly imperfect) protection against completely sociopathic behavior.

It seems like you are implying that sociopaths are a result of atheism?  Its an interesting observation, but I'm not sure if that follows.  And if it does, I'm not sure that the occasional sociopath is any worse than the dark, national pathologies that arise from some religions.  I would even suggest that sociopaths are preferrable.  They have a harder time motivating an army to attack another.

I think if you try to quantify the destruction caused by theocratic vs secular governments, then religion comes out ahead, although both sides can reference plenty of horror stories to support their case.

I agree religion comes out ahead, way ahead.  That might be because historically there have been a lot more governments with religious inclinations than atheistic ones.  It would be easier to compare if there was something resembling parity.

I don't know.  I'm not trying to blame all the world's woes on religion.  Maybe if the situation were reversed, and atheist governments were the rule rather than the exception, we'd see just as much war and persecution and blood as we have under the banner of religion.  But maybe not.  We'll probably never know.

Date: 2005/10/27 07:13:47, Link
Author: Swoosh
(a few days later...)

Well?   I'm genuinely curious!  Stevestory, please, if you have a point here, explain it. :)

Date: 2005/10/28 16:12:52, Link
Author: Swoosh
I think you misunderstood me. I'm arguing that religious leaders, on average, are less violent than secular ones.... But violence has been a constant throughout history, that's for sure.

At this point, I'm not overly motivated to research statistical world history.  My intention is not to denigrate ethical religion or engage in a tit-for-tat on the myriad examples of horrific institutional behaviors derived from either religious or atheist leaderships.  And in each individual case the issues involved are complex, interactive, subjective, and manifold.  There are enough cases to make even an overview of the history into, say, a 15 credit university course sequence.  Maybe over the course of time it can be explored in greater detail.  But for now I'd like to present my opinion of the topic in very broad terms.

For now, I'm going with a hunch that religion at least equally violent, but more dangerous.  You would seem to say otherwise.  Okay.  How can we begin to approach this?

Maybe a better place to start would be some general questions.  Is an aggressive war ever justified?  What about a defensive war?  What are the differences between the two?  How are the motivations for either kind of war influenced by religious or athestic leadership?  Is it justified to persecute, torture or kill your own citizens?  Do religious or atheistic motivations give governments the right to torture its citizens?

Aggressive war.  Governments undertaking this option send their armies from their native country to assault another.  Why?  I think both types of government tend to do so on the basis of material and political gain.  Power plays.  

Honestly athestic governments would leave it at that, and not try to justify their war on other grounds, although ideology can easily take the place of religion in this case.  The population might or might not agree with the aims of the government, and that's too bad for them if they don't.  

A religiously influenced government would downplay the material and political angle, and instead invigorate the population to support the war by citing religious differences.  The Nazis.  The Crusades.  The Iraq War, more of the same.  Manifest Destiny and the Native Americans.  The other guys are heathens, the other guys are our enemies, god hates them and loves us, god is on our side, etc.  The population might or not agree with the aims of the government, and its too bad for them if they don't.  Probably, more of them will agree.  

I submit that in both cases the war is disgusting and unethical, and that in the end material and political power is central to both.  I will further submit that using religion to motivate the population is usually hypocritical and self contradictory.  The invaded country probably also believes/claims that god is on their side, loves them and hates the invaders, etc.  The whole thing is a barrel full of bs.  But religious motivations are more effective at gathering support for the war, thus that style of government is more dangerous.  So if you're the kind who believes that the end justifies the means, go ahead and lie to your population.  The world is yours by god given right.  Just go take it.

More later.  For now, midterms are coming up!  Study, I must.  Pox on creationists for taking up so much of my free time! :D

Date: 2005/10/30 06:26:39, Link
Author: Swoosh
I don't know.  I saw it on Lenny Flanks website a couple months ago.  I hope it isn't real because... well, dayum.  But then I hope it is because I use it as part of my sig on another forum . :D

Date: 2005/11/03 23:07:58, Link
Author: Swoosh
I'm not sure I understand this very well.  The idea is simple enough, and I get where you are trying to go with it.  But the whole thing is pretty large and rife with things that made me go, "huh?  Where did that data come from?"

I'm going to look at one section.  At first I was intriged by your abandon ship analogy, but upon reflection I don't quite see how it fits.  You seem to be saying that a population on the verge of disaster acquires mutations at a significantly higher rate.  But abandoning ship is a concious choice.  Mutations or HGT aren't something organisms opt for out of desperation.  They are a result of environmental factors which are largely out of control, and especially concious control, of the organism under consideration.  For any given population of, say, bacteria, things like risk and strategy are not really going to be a factor.  Are you really trying to say that bacteria reason?

As an aside, I admit that more and more these days humans are conciously tampering with their genomes.  But that's a special case.  And their ability to do so is directly related to their proliferation.  High technology requires high specialization, which in turn requires a huge population to support the specialists.  So at least in humans it would seem that the only reason they are able to opt for genetic tampering is precisely because there are so many of them around in the first place.  I have my doubts a tiny, nearly extinct human population would be able to decide, hey I think its high time for a boatload of tasty mutations right about now.

Okay, you say, the anology is not meant to be taken so literally.  Abandoning ship is just a way of looking at the effects--concious decisions aren't really at play here, its just an analogy.  But I still don't see how it could work.  Rates of mutation are basically constant.  Given that, isn't it the case that a population would have a mutation/HGT count directly proportional to the number of places available to mutate?  The more material there is to work with, the more mutations you'll see.  How does a smaller canvas in any way increase the options for the painter?  I don't get it.

You said, "For an organism suffering very high losses and headed for extinction the normal rules about mutation do not apply."

What what? Why not?  

And then, "For normal mutation the majority of mutations are deleterious and attract a penalty derived from the large cost of death compared with non-mutation and survival and the benefits attract only a small advantage in being possibly slightly better at surviving compared with non-mutation."

Isn't it pretty much understood in the community that the majority of mutations are neutral?  I'm too lazy to look up references, but this was my understanding.  Then, even if one grants that the majority of mutations are in fact very very bad, I don't see how this would be any benefit to populations on the verge of extinction.  And again, what would cause the numbers of mutations to suddenly increase, while simultaneously flipping survivability modes from "kill!" to "live long and prosper!"

There are a few questions for ya to chew on.  Depending on how it goes, there may be more later. :)

Date: 2005/11/04 06:59:25, Link
Author: Swoosh
For a different perspective on the crusades, try Thomas Madden.

Sure, I'll check this out over the weekend.

This page argues that Hitler was not Christian.

It doesn't matter whether he was Christian or neo-pagan or Raelian or whatever.  This is beside the point that its tremendously easier to energize armies to aggressive wars when you use religion as a vehicle.

As for the Iraq War, there's another side to the story: ...  I guess the Clinton years weren't so great for the Iraqi people, either.

I agree.  Our treatment of Iraq has never been particularly avuncular.  We've had a tendency to treat Iraq like a drunken redneck stepfather treats his wife's children.  Sometimes we beat the holy #### out of 'em (Bush), sometimes we toss just 'em in the basement (Clinton).  Sometimes we give him a baseball bat and a wink, then send the other kids down into the basement with him (Reagan).  Then we go down there ourselves and beat him up for smacking the other kids with it (Bush especially, but a little bit of Clinton, too).   Oh, and then we take his oil. (All)

Which really just makes my point for me.  Aggressive wars are fought for political and/or material gain.  Our modern efforts in the middle east have been all about the oil.  Its just got a decidedly religious spin which makes it worse.

And yeah, I'll get to the "defensive war" thing this weekend.  Sorry, midterms were keeping me busy.

Date: 2005/11/04 13:57:40, Link
Author: Swoosh
HGT is very different its operation from "traditional" genetic change.

Of course.  HGT is not a mutation in the pure sense of the word.  My bad.

This, incidentally, provides a check which you might care to make on my claims.

I'm terrible at word problems.  Math has never been my strong suit.  I'll leave the calculations for others for the time being.  That is, unless I am madly overtaken by the revolutionary fervor of your idea here, which, as yet, I am not.  

The point is that in that situation, as in many others, the probabilities are different from "normal" and therefore the optimal strategies are different.

But how different?  You are implying that the difference is total and complete.  My feeling is that on the whole, species under duress don't undergo a significant increase in mutation OR horizontal gene transfer.  But maybe they do.  I'm not aware of any experiments that show this either way.  Are you?

And what if its true?  My hunch is that is isn't, but who knows.  But even if its true, natural selection still operates on the altered organisms.  What gives HGT such a tremendous advantage over plain ol mutation?  In the one case, the mutation is random.  But then the HGT is also random.  Insert a random gene into a random organism.  I can't see any obvious reason why the organism should be majorly predisposed to benefit from the transfer.

Let's take a look an overview look at what you are saying.  Evolution by mutation is bogus.  Its impossible.  Neo-Darwinism is a red herring, and the scientific establishment suppresses dissent via subtle economic mechanisms.  Scientists are not encouraged to search for alternatives lest they be ostracized.  Dr. Jehosaphat will lose his job if he dissents from the mainstream view, etc.  

But wait!  Here you are presenting the Truth to the foolish neo-Darwists!  The Truth of the situation is that mutation cannot account for the diversity of life--evolution.  The Truth--TRUTH!--is that HGT is 100% responsible for it, and evolution is a lie.  This all sounds very familiar.

Maybe I don't know enough about HGT to fully appreciate your argument here.  I would be inclined to agree that HGT has some effect in the overall scheme of things.  But you've got a big hill to climb if you intend to persuade the community that its flatly impossible for mutations to play any role in the unfolding of the tree of life.

Date: 2005/11/04 19:25:05, Link
Author: Swoosh
Fascinating and informative read.  Thanks, Henry.

Date: 2005/11/05 07:41:46, Link
Author: Swoosh
I'm thinking Mongolia.

Date: 2005/11/11 07:53:26, Link
Author: Swoosh
Having just noticed this,

In Mrs. Sagan's, it does. She claimed mitochondria and chloroplasts were eaten by other one-celled organisms to become animal and plant cells without any mechanism at all. This is a gargantuan increase in complex specified information utterly impossible without the aid of intellegent design.

I find it fun to point out that KW Jeon has done a LOT of work in this area.  Its fascinating stuff, and a very brief version of it goes something like this.

Amoeba eats bacteria.  Amoeba does not digest bacteria. Instead, amoeba carries bacteria around inside itself.  Both amoeba and bacteria die if the bacteria is removed.  Symbiosis grown right in the lab.

Paley needs to pull his eyes from the pages of a certain 2000 year old peer reviewed journal and join the modern era.   2000 year old peer reviewed journal is no longer a reliable source for scientific guidance.

And yes, yes I know I still have some posts to make.  I'll get around to it.

Date: 2005/11/13 14:25:54, Link
Author: Swoosh
I don't see the problem as a clash of cultures or ideology or ethical relativism or anything of the sort.  Its a simple biological problem rooted in ordinary physics.

There are too many people.  We're approaching the point of no return wrt the globes carrying capacity.  Human effort is both reorganizing and releasing more energy into the system than the system can process.  Technology is a double blade here.  One the one hand, its brought us this far.  On the other, we've overextended ourselves through careless application.  There is coming a point when our technological scaffolding will no longer support the vast and ill-constrained platforms upon which industrial civilization  operates.  A population crash is in the works, and there is  nothing we want to do about it.  Or maybe, there is nothing we can do.  Its just plain physics.

With small groups of people, it doesn't matter how differently the worldviews or approaches to life manifest themselves.  The world is a big place and if nothing else we can just ignore the people over there and get on with our own lives.  But communities are no longer explicable that way, and respectful avoidance isn't an option.  The village no longer exists.  They've all consolidated into gigantic nations.  Everybody rubs elbows with everyone else, and friction ensues.  Its a global mosh pit out there.

Ultimately, the differences between cultures isn't what will take us down.  Our downfall will be the result of failing to address the physical impossibility of infinite growth.  The answer is simple.  Either we take intentional, predictable steps to reverse our growth in the world, or the world will do it for us.

Date: 2005/11/26 09:14:32, Link
Author: Swoosh
Silly kids, it wont matter in fifty years or so.  Might as well work together to figure out how we're going to survive the Big Crash.  Borders, nations, flags, races, religions, blah blah blah.  Irrelevant pomp.  

Time. To. Evolve.

Date: 2005/11/28 21:52:02, Link
Author: Swoosh
O.  M.  G.

That's classic.  Thanks for the chuckles, spooky.

Date: 2005/12/06 20:08:37, Link
Author: Swoosh
Hovind is a kook, but he's kinda funny.  He creamed Callahan in this "debate".  Its a shame this format is how most people in the land nowadays recieves what passes for scientific information.  My (slim) hope is that enough latent curiousity will be aroused to offset the easy charms of this latest reconstructionist attack on science.

Date: 2005/12/20 18:48:27, Link
Author: Swoosh
Hey, don't drag the Beatles into this.  I love the White album!  Its one of my 10 desert island discs, and the only Beatles album on it.   Perhaps its ironic in light of this discussion, but I chose the White Album precisely because of its musical range (read: diversity).

Date: 2005/12/21 14:14:27, Link
Author: Swoosh
Heh.  Its been ~20 years since I compiled my DID list.  All I can remember for sure is the White Album.  This was the 80's, so its probably good thing I don't recall.  

Casting back, I'm postive that Milli Vanilli was NOT on the list. I'm pretty sure that Depeche Mode and Billy Idol were not a part.  I think that both Rio by Duran Duran and Electric by The Cult may have been on the list, but I will deny it in court.

These days I'd have to think hard about it, but I'd add Peter Gabriel's soundtrack to the Last Temptation of Christ.  I'd put some Bach on there--I want to die listening to the Brandenburgs.  Possibly a disc by the Anubian Lights, Sky Cries Mary, Bonfire Madigan, Smashing Pumpkins, and Banco de Gaia.  

Anyway, who listens to discs anymore? Its all MP3 now.  I measure my music not by the disc, but by the gigabyte.  Give me an IPOD to fill up, its the 21st century for cryin' out loud.