Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Vaidhyanathan, Oregon, Opteron
'It would become impossible to have Open Source implementations of key pieces of the infrastructure. This would be harmful, perhaps fatal, to the grand plans of those who want to deploy Web services everywhere,' Bray is reported as saying, in XML Industry Newsletter ."
Waiting for the low-power version. Jethro writes "Ace's hardware Opteron review was a very interesting read which shows some real Java webserver benchmarks on SUSE and Debian Linux, and real world database performance in MySQL and MS SQL server 2000. A lot better than those synthetic mysql benchmarks that Tom's hardware served up."
And Distinguished Hero writes "[H]ardocp.com ([H]ardNews 1oth Edition) is reporting that the Opteron processor does not actually have an integrated dual channel controller. This explains why all the Opteron reviews only used a single channel configuration. While the integrated memory controlled is not dual channel, it can be bypassed by an external (Northbridge) memory controller connected to the processor via the HyperTransport bus."
One more: EconolineCrush writes "Yesterday's Opteron launch gave us all glimpse at AMD's new 64-bit platform, but the Opteron is a server and workstation chip that will be out of reach for the majority of consumers. AMD's upcoming Athlon 64, however, will bring 64-bit computing to the desktop. Drawing heavily from what we've seen of the Opteron's performance thus far, Tech-Report has posted its thoughts on what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed. It's an interesting read for anyone salivating at the thought of an affordable 64-bit desktop platform."
Ma'am, can you please ask those anarchists in the carrels to pipe down a bit? BrianWCarver writes "Readers may recall a Slashdot interview with Siva Vaidhyanathan, Professor at NYU, and author of Copyrights and Copywrongs. Vaidhyanathan is working on a new book, The Anarchist in the Library, and was interviewed on the blog, Eyeteeth. This is a brilliant and amazing interview where Vaidhyanathan discusses how creative communities share, the DMCA, the American industrial production of culture, the USA Patriot Act, the importance of libraries and librarians, and the policies of the FCC. It is a must-read for those who care about the future of creative and democratic culture."
Technically, Oregon is not Washington. Daniel Phillips is among the many folks who have been following the progress of a bill in Oregon (HB 2892) to encourage open source software, and he points out this Register story (picked up from NewsForge, actually), writing "Apparently, moving Oregon's open source bill forward comes down to convincing the house speaker."
Reader PotatoHead fleshes that out just a bit: " Despite reports detailing the demise of HB 2982, this bill continues to be a topic at the Oregon Legislature. We have broad support for HB 2892, but need everyone to continue showing support in the form of your phone calls, e-mails, faxes and snail-mail to your Oregon Representatives. We have the attention of the Oregon Legislature in a pretty big way and need to keep up the good work if HB 2892 is to move forward against the constant efforts of the usual industry lobbyists. If you don't already know, here is how you contact your representative. Please take a moment --right now-- and show your support for HB 2982. Every contact matters as we continue to move forward with HB 2892!"
Sir, can you direct me to the nearest buggy whip store so I can beat this dead horse? If $98 billion seems to you a bit much for the music cartel to charge students for even the most indiscriminant file swapping, you may be interested in following the chilling effects that it generates, too: PL_2003 writes "A follow up on a previous slashdot article. It really seems like the recording industry is determined to continue its fight.Check this NYTimes article (free reg. required). My Take: Couldn't they use their brains for a better business model?"
OK, here are the rules ... Grub (mentioned previously) is apparently causing consternation among many webmasters. Though they claim the client honors robots.txt , it seems that only the central servers check it (and don't honor it properly) and that grub clients don't don't check it at all. Ooops.
Time to round up and segregate the arrogant. jtheory writes "There's an AP story today here on Yahoo news) that the Justice department has dropped its probe into the recommendation policy of a Texas Tech bio professor. It's encouraging that all he had to do to stop the investigation was make some very minor changes in his policy, but it's still horrifying to me that he got into trouble in the first place. Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"
The various motherboard photos seem to indicate that their are DIMM sockets to accomodate 128-bit memory. I would hope that the various benchmarks have been done with this configuration, since it obviously increases the memory bandwidth considerably.
Reference: page 15 of the AMD Opteron Processor data sheet, AMD document 23932 rev 3.00 dated April 2003.
AMD's upcoming Athlon 64, however, will bring 64-bit computing to the desktop. so we can give a full 64-bits to one backdoor network or the next.
...against those college students. They'll make nothing from it, but the results of them losing could be pretty ugly.
Could you imagine the counter-suit? I'd call a $98 BILLION lawsuit against "poor" college students "malicious prosecution."
--ZS
-- sigs cause cancer.
HB 2892 ... HB 2982 ... HB 2892 ... HB 2892 ... HB 2982
Perhaps we might actually get this bill through if we managed to figure out what the correct number is for once.
Am I a hipster-doofus?
Hey, anybody know of a source for Opteron systems? What about pricing? Specifically, I'd like to get my hands on a top of the line dual-CPU box. I think a lot of people would be willing to splurge $2k on a decent Opteron-based workstation.
Hell, saying Siva Vaidhyanathan three times quickly is trivial.
It's saying it one time correctly that's the challenge.
fifth sigma, inc.
When these college kids graduate, go onto careers of their own they will be in the position to BUY music rather then spend time searching and downloading it off the current hot p2p app. But will they be interested anymore?
Why would the record industry want to constantly go after their own best customers and future customers? Im no longer in college myself, don't buy much music anymore cause I prefer 80s music. I do buy a ton of DVDs though. The reaso nbeing there is great value in DVDs. I get superior picture quality and sound, a nice keep case, art work, special features, comentaries, interactive content, all for $14-$21.
If the record industry could offer such great content at a reasonable price, sales would skyrocket.
Instead they charge far too much for far too little, and on top of it, they constantly attack their own customers with threats and lawsuits and bullshit like CDs that wont play on their computer. Then they lobby for laws that punish not just music pirates but all people who wish to use the internet without restrictions. It's really quite amazing how a group of billionaires can be so ass backwards.
Im hoping their is a major backlash from the millions of students in this country.
I don't think it's right to exclude someone from medical practice just because they don't ascribe to the theory of evolution. They're still capable of observation and understanding the scientific process, perhaps even more so than those who blindly adhere to a theory because they keep their minds open to the possibility that it is wrong. Science isn't about religious prejudice.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Vaidhyanathan? Is that even pronounceable
I'm guessing it's approximately "See-vuh Vye-Jonathan"
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's pronounced 'Smith'.
Right. For example, it would be completely beyond the pail were a state-run university to require that medical students believe in... medicine.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
That's a slippery slope you're suggesting.
Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead - a belief which is both unscientific and contrary to our understanding of medical science?
And here I thought it was pronounced "luxury yacht"...
Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"
How exactly do you make that connection between Creationism and ignoring animal research? I hate to break it to you, but the people who typically believe that animals should not be researched upon are the ones who believe they evolved (and thus, are no differnt from humans and deserve the same treatment). Creationism by its very nature puts humans above and beyond other animals, and thus animals are to be utilized by humans.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Many people I know who don't believe in biological macro-evolution still believe in an old earth, and they don't deny that the fossil record shows an increase in complexity in life over time. However, they simply don't believe random genetic mutation combined with natural selection is enough to drive the evolution of life to what we have today. How is that being unscientific? How is that person going to be a "dangerous" doctor?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
You must be new here...
However much of a troll that was, I think I need to intervene: how can you call an Indian a "sand nigger"? There is little to no sand in India. You could call an Arab a "sand nigger" (not condoning it, just saying that iwould make sense), but certainly not an Indian. They are very different. Maybe a Pakistani, but that name is certainly Hindi/Sanskrit and he's from India and certainly not near any sand. If you're going to do racial slurs, at least do them right.
This guy has written many high quality scientific papers, he does a lot of work on Cosmology, and yet he was a devout 7th Day Adventist - and therefore believed in creation.
Didn't seem to interfere with his work.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Get used to it...people say people are dead. Don't worry, they're not.
But unlike the Arab world, there are very small concentrations of people living in the deserts because there is so much fertile land to live on. Lord, why the hell am I wasting my karma on this?
My experience in contacting my local representative. I'm impressed doesn't appear to be a form letter!
---
I am fully supportive of the bill, and as a member of the committee
(General Government) assigned the bill, I am working with the proponents
and a few other legislators to move this bill.
We had a very successful hearing on it that attracted a great deal of
opposition from some of the big high-tech lobbyists. They turned out in
force and are now trying to prevent those of us on the committee who
support it from bringing it up for a work session. Unfortunately on
their side, the lobbyists have the committee chair, most committee
members of the majority party (Republicans), and a few influential
members of the House leadership. The fact that the bill has so much
muscle against it means we are giving them a fight they did not expect
to face!
Thanks for contacting me about this. If you have not already, please
feel free to send your email to other legislators as well.
Sincerely,
Kelley Wirth
State Representative
District 16
Melissa P. White
Legislative Assistant
Representative Kelley Wirth
District 16
900 Court Street NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
503-986-1416
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam XXXXX [mailto:XXXXXXXX@attbi.com]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:47 PM
To: REP Wirth
Subject: Internet email for Legislative Member, TO: Kelley Wirth
Dear Representative Kelley Wirth:
I'm very disappointed to hear that House Bill 2892 is being stalled
because large corporations fear it's implications. Open Source software
should be consider equally along with other costly software! If the
Open Source software is more cost effective and achieves the same
purpose it should be used in Oregon government applications. This would
be a perfect oppurtunity for Oregon lawmakers to show their commitment
to maximize taxpayers money! Thanks and please consider my thoughts.
Sincerely,
Adam XXXXXX
XXX NW 5th #XXX
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
XXXXXXXX@attbi.com
Where the Music Matters
My Oregon House Representative, Mitch Greenlick (Democrat-033), wrote back to me:
Now, I don't mean to be a naysayer, and I'd hate to quit too early, but when the man says it's dead...
Doomed feelings aside, I'm off to write the speaker of the house, Ms. Minnis... As I said to Rep. Greenlick, I'd rather not have my taxes raised when the alternative could be to use open-source software providing Oregonians with jobs (installation, design, maintenance) and saving money by eliminating the need to pay economic rent to Washingtonians (Microsoft Licensing Fees).
SLM
If you think you can hurt me again, you're wrong. I left my heart in my other pants.
I just want to take a moment to comment on Grub. In the original story we heard,
"People who choose to download and run the client will assist in building the Web's largest, most accurate database of URLs."
Already I find myself rolling my eyes.
Then I click through to the site. Aha. I will volunteer my machine on a non-profit basis for a for-profit company. This is just like distributed.net and SETI? Give me a break, these guys were bought out by Looksmart, a paid for placement ad company.
Google didn't succeed by getting slashdot editors to post stories saying they are building the most useful search engine out there, they succeeded by actually building it.
I just hope grub keeps the fools who want to regulate google away. Google succeeded because they didn't have to listen to self-important analysts.
You dummy. In rap music, it's used as 'nigga', which is not the same as the word you use. Black people use it to greet each other, talk about people, etc. For example:
description of someone else: "Dat nigga be trippin!"
greeting: "Yo what up, nigga?"
Perfectly fine if black people use it. White people, no way. It is not the same thing as the word you describe.
And then this, from that forum thread:
Give me a break, a web spider has only one requirement: OBEY ROBOTS.TXT . It's clear they didn't even consider this when coding it, let alone other niceties like "Don't DoS the site by spidering it too fast".Check it out.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Starts at $2600
Or so they say.
It appears that the Opteron can report the actual address of any detected errors. Plus, it can report details of ECC errors in its caches.
But the coolest feature is that it supports memory scrubbing, a feature I'd previously not seen in a microprocessor or chipset since the iAPX 432 memory controller back in 1983.
When a SEU causes a single-bit error in a word of memory, the ECC is capable of correcting it when the word is read. But if that word doesn't get read again for a long time, it's possible that a second SEU might happen in the same word, which would then be an uncorrectable error. With memory scrubbing, the memory controller uses a small portion of the memory bandwidth to scan the entire memory, correcting any single-bit errors that are found, so that the probability of a two-bit (or more) uncorrectable error is greatly reduced.
My last several computers (including a dual Athlon using the 760MPX chip set, and a DEC Alpha) had ECC, but not scrubbing. I considered writing a Linux program to scrub the memory by direct access to /dev/mem, but this has the disadvantage of thrashing the processor's caches. By implementing scrubbing in hardware, the Opteron avoids that problem.
The Opteron has a Scrub Control Register that is used to enable or disable scrubbing and control the rate. There are independent scrubbing controls for the L1 data cache, L2 cache, and main memory.
Those of us that want high reliability really welcome this feature. Well done, AMD!
By the way, it should be noted that it is typical for a PC with 128 megabytes of memory to get a single bit error several times a week. On my Alpha, I routinely saw corrected error log messages in the syslog, which gave me much more confidence in the system than the way that most PCs simply fail to even detect memory errors, let alone correct them. The log messages are also useful in that you can determine whether you have some memory that is getting marginal. For instance, at one point I started getting a much higher rate of corrected errors on one particular SIMM. There may have been a slight amount of oxidation or corrosion on the contacts, or they may have just worked themselves loose a bit. Cleaning the contacts and reseating the SIMM solved the problem with only a few minutes of down time, instead of what probably would have been hours of down time had the errors gone unnoticed.
The results of an undetected error vary considerably; it may be in memory that is not in use at the time, or it could be in the midst of the operating system, an application, or user data.
Damn. If I had any mod points, you'd have gotten one. I'd have liked to have given you two or three, actually.
I was always apalled at the double standard most people in N. Am have for those of us that don't believe in the version of Jesus as some white dude who spoke like King James. I mean, I should be as free to say that I'm an apatheist as a dark-looking guy should be to say that he believes in the Mystical Turtle of Life, right? Not a chance. The swarthy fellow gets a "Wow, you have a really interesting belief system... tell me more about your culture" kind of reaction and I get one like "You're going to hell... you know that, right?"
As a white American male, I'm expected to espouse the traditional Christian myths. If I had an accent or something I could say whatever I wanted. But since I sound like a typical Californian, I have to say "Jesus saves! Praise be!" or I either get shit on or an attempt to save my soul. My wife gave me a bumper sticker that says "Jesus is coming. Look busy." You wouldn't believe the amount of grief I get for that. I think it's funny as all get-out, yet most people (Americans) don't seem to have a very open sense of humor when it comes to a white guy calling bullshit on the whole Bible story. The Turkish guy can have a "Praise Allah" sticker -- basically discounting Christianity out of hand -- and gets nothing. Is it because deep down your average Baptist or Episcopalian or whatever automatically discounts the foreign guy as a heathen? It's an "us vs. them" thing? I don't know.
I'm fine with any religion, as long as you don't try to convince me yours is the one I should believe in. You ever had a Taoist tell you that you're going to hell unless you fessed up with the sins and got with their program? When's the last time a Hindu tried to convert you? When's the last time a pair of Muslims came to your door and tried to foist their nonsensical tracts on you?
As much as people in the U.S. preach tolerance, I don't see a lot of it...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Does anyone else see two topic icons on this article? The slashback icon as well as the AMD one.
And it's not some browser specific bug... It's displayed in both Mozilla and IE.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
si = shift (approximate)
va = vulnerable
vai = why
dya = the + yummy
naa = banana
than = thumb + noun
You're one of those people who never reads the manual, right? And make people like me posts to email lists saying "RTFM noob"?
Your ignorance of evolutionist is truly astounding.
Of course it is. A mere five characters for the surname in my mother tongue, Telugu.
As to where do they come with the names, I'm guessing he's a Tamilian, which means his surname is his dad's first name. If I remember my Sanskrit correctly, it literally means 'master of health', or a doctor.
More than mere navel gazing.
Forgive my ignorance of racist epithets; there is a fellow from Norway whom I'd like to insult. I'm wondering if what you say here means that I should be calling my friend a fjord-nigger?
I noticed it too - and if you look at several other stories posted today, many of them have it. The one about the PPC970 has an AMD logo on top of an IBM logo. The PC/104 one has hardware on top of links. "Video Game Movies in Development" has the 'Games' joystick on top of the 'Movies' clapboard.
The winner, hovever, seems to be this one about the GPL vs. the XP licence: it has Tux on top of Bill of Borg, both above the Justice lady. Hrm...
Cue The Sun...
The prices for the Opteron chips seem reasonable, and the nforce3 and new VIA chipsets should make it possible to build reasonably priced motherboards -- so why would the Opteron be out of reach for power-hungry computer users?
Just because it says 'server' on the box the chip comes in?
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
This would also solve the memory controller bandwidth problem. People who need the additional bandwidth can use two clawhammers; they'll want SMP anyway. This was my plan all along, my understanding was that sledgehammner had a superior (dual channel) memory controller and an additional HT link (three total) and that clawhammer had only a single channel memory controller but still had two HT links, so you could get dual processor SMP out of it for "free" (only the cost of supporting the pins and bus connections on the motherboard.) I don't see why you wouldn't be able to build linear-connected SMP machines with it either, up to 32 nodes or whatever HT supports, though I'm not sure how useful a machine set up with those kind of interconnects would be, or what kind of OS it would take to do anything meaningful with it.
Anyway, AMD really did promise those things in their marketing literature -- 1-2 way clawhammer and 2-8 way sledgehammer (that always looked funny to me, like they were implying you had to run at least two chips) and the processors in the sledgehammer would be cross-connected, with two of them each employing a dual channel memory controller at once. Then they changed their minds. Doubtless they felt that they had to remove it to bring the chips down to some magical price point, and maybe they're right, but I was expecting a really classy CPU and what we're getting is cool and all, but they missed the geek factor pretty much entirely.
Now it's not like itanic is there mind you, the new PowerPC is pretty geeky but that can't make it a leading processor just because of the weight behind x86 (which if you think about it, AMD is helping to preserve. we laud them for their backwards compatibility, and we hope their new extensions are better-implemented than, say, the i386's. :) They certainly look better, it looks like a great chip in every way, but it really does appear to need another hypertransport link. Come on, AMD.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Of course, such a configuration using the Athlon 64 will not be supported by AMD, since the Athlon 64 will not be rated for SMP use, but in practice it is likely to work, unless AMD actually disables the ccHT capability of the processor.
"Creationist place much more evidence in scientific fact then evolutionists do. "
By definition, Creationist science does not use (in fact deny's) methodological naturalism. To explain... Accepted science requires that one only rely on what one can test with no recourse to a supernatural explanation... One can still believe in the supernatural, but for the sake of science everybody has agreed to play by the same set of rules, methodological naturalism.
Creationsist (and inteligent design believers) do not play by these rules, hence they are not in the business of science.
This is not bigotry, it is simply fact and how science is carried out... observe, hypothesis, test...
No... it is not... as I mention in another post. Creationist do not follow scientific method. They do not play by the same rules, and rely on a supernatural explanation, which is not science.
Methodological Naturalism, ya can only talk about what you observe, create a hypthesis for, and then test, is the way of science. This has been done for micro-evolution and can be applied to macro evolution. It is not possible to apply to Creationism as creationism (and Intiligent Design) rely on a supernatural, unobservable, untestable explanation.
In short not science...
What punishment is there for not honoring it?
Instead there should be a technological solution, rather than a legal or social solution (the current solution, I believe, is social).
The answer? Look to Slashdot. Create artificial "delays" in access times. Slashdot has 2 minutes between posts and 20 seconds between clicking "Reply" and "Submit".
The web sites could have an artificial 2- or 3-second delay between accesses, so for instance if a "robot" was scanning the site it would experience slow-downs. And it could increase the delay upon multiple accesses, by (say) 1 second each access within the limit, so that the spider would end up taking a very long time to get each page.
This would require no change in laws, or in "social" behavior to punish the spiders. People generally don't click on a new link that quickly anyway (they tend to read some of the page before clicking on a link on that page), so this would be very non-intrusive for regular users but would slow down a spider.
Of course, then the spiders would be written such that they scan multiple sites, so a slowdown on one (or every) site wouldn't slow the spider down much. But that's the price we pay for putting information on the internet.
I seriously think the practice of using "robots.txt" is silly.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Are you sure it it not cosmetology?
Help fight continental drift.
that should read "no-ass talentless clown." He's Canadian and all, ergo no ass.
-- haaz.
I certainly couldn't find anything that says so. Of course, the *Athlon64* will only have a 64-bit (single-channel) memory interface, but the *Opterons* have 128-bit memory interfaces. All of AMD's docs have been saying so for quite some time, and the DECENT reviewers (read: Not Tom), which used the 128-bit memory interface enabled, showed significant improvements in memory bandwidth.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
I must disagree. What about cosmological scientists who rely on "dark energy" and "dark matter" to explain the way the universe is reacting and expanding?
Scientist's observations pointing to something we can't yet explain does not mean that that it is not science, it simply means science is leading us down a path where we haven't been before.
What do I observe? Remarkably complex creatures and phenomenen (many documented here on slashdot and other evolutionist magazines). An analogy: when I see software I don't assume some random bit generator over time created it. Nor do I assume that the hard drive spurted bits that created a program that happened to work. I (and you may differ) assume that it was created by something intelligent (i.e. a programmer).
Evolution is the only field of study where random chance over time is an acceptable method of creating complex structures.
Your next point was testing: evolution has soundly failed here. Provide me with *one* example of time creating increasing genetic complexity.
Evolution's chance + time formula is no more observable in and of itself that intelligent design is.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/2001/ 2001Sep.htm
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
I agree everyone should play by the same rules. But the rules should also be fair. Saying you can't rely on intelligent design to carry out scientific work is not a fair rule: the winner is already clear.
Science is about going where the evidence leads us, not where we want to go. Science has been repeatedly misused over the course over the last century by those eager to provide evidence for evolution when, in fact, there was none.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
The point is this: students are asking Prof Dini to make a recommendation. A recommendation is a personal statement that Dr. Dini believes the student in question is qualified for... something. If he doesn't believe the student is qualified, he shouldn't write the recommendation -- regardless of his reason.
To put it another way, the Department of Justice is essentially compelling Dr. Dini to write recommendations for students that Dr. Dini does not feel are qualified. Our Benevolent Government is making someone misstate his own personal opinions. The fact that it's a recommendation for medical school and the fact that Dr. Dini teaches at a public university are red herrings; We The People are still asking him to lie about his evaluation of a student's qualifications.
Compelled speech isn't free speech.
I have no problems with that name.
Sincerely,
Constantinos Dimopoulos
By the way, if anyone is interested in TPC-C benchmarks of the Opteron, it can be seen here. It is interesting to see such a small player like Rackserver among big boys like IBM, HP and Fujitsu.
Creationism is a valid scientific view point
When you can explain how Creationism can be proved false (a requirment for any scientific theory) your statement will be correct.
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
You think Vaidhyanathan is difficult to pronounce? Try Thirugnanasampanthamoorthy. (Minor character in Arthur Clarke's 3001 space odessey, the fourth in the series.) Vaidhyanathan is a very common Indian name, and the other one isn't rare either. Anyway if you find it difficult remember Vie-dhya-nah-thun. I imagine you'll have trouble with the second syllable, its peculiar to sanskrit. I've seen westerners split it into two syllables, like dhee-ya. Its not. Its a single syllable.
Science is about going where the evidence leads us, not where we want to go.
Right here we have the real problem with creationism. All creationists believe in God, and not because the evidence led them to believe. If you try asking a few about their belief in God then you can be pretty sure that they will say that they have faith that God exists. This leads to a crucial difference between the way in which real scientists believe in evolution and the way in which pseudo-scientists believe in creationism.
Here's the difference:
If the evidence started going south for Darwinism (lets say Lamarkian evolution started to fit the evidence better) or even for Evolution (lets say we start finding alien artefacts, along with manuals with titles like "How to Design a Species" etc), then scientists would switch to the new theory. By contrast, do you really think that creationists would change their religion, or even become athiests if the evidence started going south for their favourite version of creationism?
Scientists change their beliefs all the time, even with regard to the most fundamental ideas. As you put it, they follow the evidence, even when it leads them in surprising directions. Creationists, like most religious people, do not. They take some beliefs on faith, and stick to them regardless of where the evidence leads.
"dark matter" (haven't heard about the "dark energy") is being tested... current theories (I believer) include the idea of various particles (from simple neutrinos to other more exotic ideas) and developing a way to detect and mesure amounts to determine if this is a viable explanation...
in other words, observe, develop a hypothesis, and then test. Also for scientists that specialize in cosmology, this isn't a new thing... missing matter has been a question for over 20 years now...
On the software analogy... existance of complex software does not equal intellignece (... considering some of the code I've seen over the years, quite the opposite!)
As for complex structures in nature... evolution technically does not rely on pure chance... it accepts that other forces in nature will affect the direction of evolution (emphasis, natural, not supernatural influence, e.g. food source, predation, weather, etc.)
As for evolution being the only field of study that relies on random chance... well see above, it really relies on probablity, similar to another field of accepted science, quantem physics..
As for *one* example of time creating increasing genetic complexity... well dependin on micro or macro... Micro evolution has been tested in lab with fruit flies and produced different critters.
But I get the sense that by complexity you mean something like Cambrian explosian to modern times.... macro evolution has, through a decent fossil record showed development and incresing complexity. The current debate, I believe, is mechanism. In short is it as simple as Dawin's ideas of differentiation or do other factors (radiation leading to randome mutation, etc.) play a bigger role.
Evolution and time are more observable then I.D. because even most I.D. people accept the fossil record, just no way to show that there was a supernatural intlligence behind it...
My point is that creationis and I.D. both rely on a supernatural explanation. Science purposefully limits itself to something that can be observed and tested, along with the possiblity that the hypothesis could be wrong. Even Feynman said that science is just an attempt to create a model of the world we see... Creationism and I.D. do not create a model... They do not allow for the model to be negated or tested...
In short to alow a supernatural explanation then opens up a huge can of worms... (e.g. Graivity... much too complex an idea for there to be some radom force that some how pulls every thing in the correct direction... there must be some intelligence guiding it so it knows where to go and how to make things fall....)
In other words... I don't see a contridiction between religious beliefs (and I.D. is religious at its core) and science the only people that do are those who feel that science some how threatens religion and a percieved natural order of things based on some need to know that a higer order is behind it all...
I could probably think of more but I'm rather tired. Please reply if you need more and I'll answer later.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
1) Dr Dini did not change his requirement in any appreciable way:
m
Original:
"How do you think the human species originated?
If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences"
New:
"How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."
Read the statement: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.ht
He explains his requirement and *still* says that he will not recommend people who reject evolution.
2) Professors have the right to choose who they will and will not write a recommendation for. Should they be required to put their recommendation behind anyone who asks them?
3) The student in question never asked Dr Dini for a recommendation at all.
4) Dini also requires the student to have earned and "A" in one of his classes. Spradling had not done this.
5) Dini requires that "I should know you fairly well." Dini says he had no idea who Spradling was.
Basically the whole situation is a publicity stunt dreamed up by a creationists. The Spradling didn't meet *any* of Dini's criteria for recommendation.
for #1: Earth is as old as the designer/god wants it to be to carry out either creation or I.D. with old Earth timing.
2. Time can or can not create new gentic information at the decision of the designer/god.
3. Examples of evolution are up to the designer/god.
In other words you missed the point of the post... science allows itself to be wrong for the sake of finding a better model. In short it allows that it can be negated (and please do not throw out the consipriacy theories at this point, as is true of any human endevor there will be politics, personality clashes, etc. but over the long haul, the truth has come through.)
I.D. and creationism do not allow for or have any mechanism to update thier models... they are either right or well... they don't accept an alternative. They don't accept any evidence outside of that which may disprove them... Evolution is as least still developing trying to figure out which mechanism best fits the data and how to refine hypothesis (plural?) to create a better model.
There is a difference between faith in God and belief in creation. So try not to confuse the two. If you provide me with enough evidence to believe evolution I'll "switch" (see this post. Now what would you accept as acceptable evidence for creation? Or are you determined to have faith in evolution?
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
So what makes those "more exotic" ideas any weirder than ID?
I did not say existance of complex software = intelligence, but you'd agree (I think) that the existance of any software != chance.
Quatum physics does not rely on chance to create itself.
What do you mean be "decent fossil record"? Well sure, there are creatures more complex in the fossil record and creatures less complex. But if I line computers in five year intervals you would see increased complexity, but that does not prove those computers evolved.
Gravity *does not* rely on chance.
I don't feel that open minded sceince threatens anything. The more we've dug into the workings of life over the past century, the more we discover complexity that would have blown Darwin's mind. Hence, I love scientific advances because they simply point more and more clearly toward creation.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
You mean that creation has remained steady and evolution is like a wobbling tower constantly on the brink of scientific disaster? I'd say that chalks up one for creation. Think of it this way: has the complexity of life become more explainable by chance since Darwin or less? ie has discoveries about proteins and genetic structure furthered evolution or given it one more headache that is has to try and explain?
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
Those proofs would problably cause Creationists some grief, and may even get them to stop arguing the infalablity of the Bible. But I think you misunderstood me; allow me to rephrase: explain how to prove that any event is free from the influence of an omnipotent being
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
What exactly does that mean?
Is this a personal recommendation that is being given?
Like looking for a resume refrence??
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
How would that compare in speed to a dedicated HT link directly between the two processors?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
By definition, Creationist science does not use (in fact deny's) methodological naturalism. To explain... Accepted science requires that one only rely on what one can test with no recourse to a supernatural explanation... One can still believe in the supernatural, but for the sake of science everybody has agreed to play by the same set of rules, methodological naturalism.
Creationsist (and inteligent design believers) do not play by these rules, hence they are not in the business of science.
What you have described is what I call the "religion of science" and is as much a departure from strict empiricism as any religion. Which is perhaps why many anthropologists call Science a sort of religion. My own feeling is that by denying that scientific theories are rooted in philosophical assumptions is at best naive, and at worst self-delusional.
Many may fault me from quoting such an old book, but I think "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg (yes, that Heisenberg!) is well worth referring to, Heisenberg (and for that matter Einstein wrote on this as well) held that a set of data does not imply a single correct scientific explenation. Instead, valid scientific theory arises from the combination of data and pre-existing philosophical assumptions which inform the interpretation of this data.
Scientists put a great deal of faith in the idea that eventually the discussion will settle on the Truth about a certain theory, but this hasn't happened. Instead every scientist brings to the table a unique set of assumptions which inform their interpretation of the data and so the discussion continues. For example we have seen a fierce debate rage over nearly a century regarding the nature of wave-like behavior of electrons. That debate has changed many times, but has never gone away. At heart-- how can an electron interfere with itself and still strike a target as a single particle? Many people have different ideas (including many which place an almost supernatural power on such things as observation or consciousness).
In fact, the neoplatonist, while admitting to the supernatural in a sort of empiricist manner, probably has more in common with the scientist than with the creationist because the former two place a great deal of importance on dialogue and intellectual search, while I think that most people are content with ignorant faith.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You are right, if an omnipotent being existed, he could do anything he wanted, including messing with gravity and what not. But it's obvious that the omnipotent being also created scientific laws which the things which he created follow.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
I notice you avoided dealing with the crucial question. Would you stop believing in God (or whatever your favourite creator is) if the evidence went against creationism? Or is your belief that there is a creator based on something other than the evidence?
As for evidence of creationism I would be quite happy if you could say, provide me with a short video of the creator at work, maybe creating a small species of bacteria or something (doesn't have to be anything too complex, I know he is a busy guy). Also you (or he) should provide a short explanation of the creation process and give sufficient details of his (or her I suppose) methodology, so that other scientists could reproduce the results in a lab. It would also be helpful if your explanation of the creation process could be used to answer the sorts of basic questions that evolutionary theory answers, like why men have nipples perhaps (was that a joke, or just something about the way the creation process works?), or why we find animals with spotted bodies and striped tails, but never the other way around (just a fashion preference?).
Feel free to start where ever you like.
Sreeveeravenkatalakshminarasimharaajuvaaripuram. India's longest train-station name without abbreviations.
I, of course, cheated; it's easier to read/pronounce if you break the name into its constituent Telugu words "Sree Veera Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raaju Vaari Puram", but they write it in the station without spaces. Now, 'Veera Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raju' is, arguably, not an un-common Telugu name; in fact, Telugu names will usually have an additional surname in front. Consider then, the travails of someone named, say, Kasimbhatla Veera Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raju; I guess he'll write his name as 'KVVL Narasimha Raju' or something.
Incidentally, that place is literally a state away from Ib, Orissa, which has the shortest name for any train station in India.
More than mere navel gazing.
However washington (there is no R is washington)
was part of Oregon, Oregon territorry that is.
When Oregon became a state in 1859 (Valentines day)
there was some stuff left over ie Washington, Idaho,... Not sure why the Oregonians of the day didn't want it.
in late 2003 or early 2004 they are completely switching memory to DDR2, but since DDR2 is as hard to come by as Jesus in a Bottle
DDR2 on eBay
Oh, that DDR2.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This guy either does not support the bill, or has not really investigated the issue. His office needs a few more phone calls. Lets make sure he gets them.
You all must remember, the process is fluid. There are many ways this bill can continue to move through the legislature.
If this is something we *really* want, and they understand that, then the bill stands a chance. They can move any issue they want to in any number of ways. If this were a sweetheart bill, you can bet it would find a way to move through the house. This bill can too.
The Oregon Legislature is getting a lot of calls and mail on this, and we need to keep it up.
Basically, we have money on one side and political creedence on the other. If enough people continue to remain involved, it remains harder to quietly kill the bill.
The issue of Open Source is alive in the Legislature right now. Getting a work session is important because the objections can be ironed out.
By making Open Source and Open Standards an issue, we at least bring awareness of the problems to a level that is hard any other way.
Just keep your perspective. The other bills died as quickly as the headlines went up. This one is still around with support in the Legislature. That is a WIN, not a loss by any measure!
If you have called, you might wait a day and ask for an update. Its another reason to call and the type of thing that demands a response which clearly shows interest.
Preparing responses takes time. Ask good questions, who when why how? That way a simple form letter does not cover the issue well enough to be considered a response.
If you get a form letter, make a quick phone call. You will get an answer and a chance to take someones time. That matters.
Representitives who simply say it's over do not support the bill. This does not mean it's over, it means you can stop calling now.
Don't do that.
This is what the lobbyists want. They want it because that keeps the status quo.
Take a good look at who opposes the bill. All those companies consider this a direct threat to one of their largest customers; namely, the state of Oregon.
Here is what I got from my Rep. (Encouraging.)
Dear Mr. Potatohead,
Thank you for your email in support of HB 2892. Rep. Dingfelder supports
the concept of this bill and realizes the cost savings that it would
bring about. At present, the bill is undergoing a few amendments so I am
unable to commit to her vote for the bill until the final versions come
out. However, my guess is that she will support it. I have passed along
your comments to her. In addition, I will place a copy of your email in
the bill file. This will assure that she again sees your comments prior
to voting on the bill on the house floor.
Thanks for taking the time to contact our office regarding this issue.
The representative greatly appreciates your input! Please feel free to
contact out office at any time we can be of assistance to you.
Sincerly,
(!?!)
Legislative Assistant to Rep. Jackie Dingfelder
House District 45
(Phone)
Blogging because I can...
I have already posted this under another thread, but just got the idea after reading a couple other posts.
So, what does your Rep say? Here is mine:
(Positive)
Dear Mr. Potatohead,
Thank you for your email in support of HB 2892. Rep. Dingfelder supports
the concept of this bill and realizes the cost savings that it would
bring about. At present, the bill is undergoing a few amendments so I am
unable to commit to her vote for the bill until the final versions come
out. However, my guess is that she will support it. I have passed along
your comments to her. In addition, I will place a copy of your email in
the bill file. This will assure that she again sees your comments prior
to voting on the bill on the house floor.
Thanks for taking the time to contact our office regarding this issue.
The representative greatly appreciates your input! Please feel free to
contact out office at any time we can be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
(name)
Legislative Assistant to Rep. Jackie Dingfelder
House District 45
(Phone)
Blogging because I can...
There would be an increase in latency. I'm not sure how significant it would be, compared to the normal latency between two Opterons directly attached via HT with no tunnel between them.
I have done this above, if you read at +1 or lower
(until I get modded down by the PC monitors, that is.)
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I'm the last person to suggest that science is the only way of knowing, but I don't see how creationism has anything to do with knowledge, except to be obstructionist. Seriously, how can anyone maintain a position of strict literal interpretation for any book, much less one as distant in time, place, culture and language as the Bible? I would be more sympathetic to idea that rejecting creationism is intolerant if the whole program didn't come across as intellectually dishonest. Even if they believe what they say, there is a basic dishonesty in even suggesting a scientific basis. The whole point of the excercise is to validate "received knowledge" as if there were any evidence that would ever to taken to falsify this theory.
It is a big world and the definition of random is that sometimes somewhere something like this will eventually happen. It doesn't indicate that there was any kind of direct cause and effect. What saved your son was probably you and the mother, somewhere you gave him the just the right genes in the right places. Sadly, for every story like yours there are probably many where people prayed and the outcome was still not as desired. This is often referred to as "gods will", or working in mysterious ways. It is human nature to perpetuate only the good stories.
I wish there was a direct effect from praying, it would give many people all over the world the ability to control the world around them, even when all seems hopeless.
Modern inquisition? Give me a break.
What about comparing things that are in the same level?
MySQL doesn't do as much as MS SQL Server, forcing much logic onto the application and not scaling as well. The valid comparision would have been PostgreSQL.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
He's 100% right, and summed up the response I was about to post. Genetic variation * selection = evolution. We can actually witness it happen, and regardless of other beliefs (God, creation of the world, etc.) for a "scientist" to say that evolution does not occur means that that he has either not done his research or isn't capable of understanding basic biology & logic. While _all_ science is theory, and no good scientist will assert absolute knowledge of ANYTHING, for anyone to suggest that evolution does not occur implies that they have not correctly evaluated the arguments, since the evidence we have collected is remarkably clear and well understood.
Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Heh, I went to the page, started to write, and realized two things:
:) and send it off.
:)
1) They're not going to listen to e-mail. The last time I wrote my congressman I wrote them a letter. I was 19. I got a hand written letter back. Whether or not he did it himself, probably not, it was a nice gesture -- someone out there wasted a good deal of time replying to me in a very personal fashion. I think the same respect should be returned in kind. Your message will mean more if you take the 10-20 minutes to write that letter (I'm a slow hand-writer
2) I don't vote. Why should I care now? Perhaps the reason that I should vote is for bills like this, but then again, I just don't care. Open Source in government is nice -- but frankly, if it's not the right product, it shouldn't be used.
I would rather see them use Sun or IBM than use Open Source. If only for the support contracts.
I guess my point is, is that I caught myself being a sheep and not analyzing the situation properly, at least to my own feelings. Please make sure those of you who read this do not do the same. Thank you.
It is trivial to add support for scrubbing to the operating system. I've done this on embedded systems. I just added a small bit of code to the real-time clock ISR to read the contents of the next N addresses, where N was sized to guarantee that all of the installed ECC memory would be scrubbed at a reasonable rate. It didn't have any noticable impact on performance.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one's understanding of science and the scientific method."
Uhm... no. Either develop a repeatable test that results in macro-evolution, or stop pretending that the theory of evolution is the result of the scientific method. It wasn't. It was the result of an untested epiphany of some guy on an island (and that is an *empirical fact*, lets remember), and it absolutely boggles my mind that supposedly scientifically sophisticated individuals don't/won't/can't(?) understand that.
On the otherhand, I think the professor has the right to give recommendations out to whomever he chooses. I mean, if he thinks only women should go to grad school, wouldn't it be within the bounds of his personal freedom to recommend only women? I think it would.
Jake
PS- I know the name of the guy.
The rise in tolerance of unbelievable points of view, moreover their impact on policy in the US, is incredibly disturbing.
From the Republican Senators (the racist/homophobe), Ashcroft's prayer meetings, Ashcroft's draping a nude statue w/ a drape (!), bush's "faith based" BS... etc etc etc.
The seperation between church and state, and the ability for people to understand that ALL these things are instances of Fundemental (Reconstructionist even) Christian goals/acts/efforts is very scary.
Even Bush believes God is on his side in Iraq - you'd think someone in his position, a leader of a secular USA, wouldnt be a delluded cultist.
From that article above:
One in three American Christians call themselves evangelicals and many evangelicals believe the second coming of Christ will occur in the Middle East after a titanic battle with the anti-Christ.
Does the president believe he is playing a part in the final events of Armageddon?
If true, it is an alarming thought.
But he would not be alone, as 59% of all Americans believe that what is written in the Bible's Book of Revelation will come to pass.
You don't have to believe in evolution, evolution believes in you
Bacteria and virii evolve faster than large animals. Hence, we have antibiotic-resistant bacteria, new strains of HIV, SARS etc. Deny evolution and you deny them.
There are two ways out of this, besides the obvious giving in and admitting that creationism is a crock (which does not necessarily mean denying god, just denying the literal truth of scripture).
Doublethink: Humans are perfectly capable of holding mutually contradictory beliefs, so long as they are held in different contexts. I'm not going to object overly to what my doctor believes in church on Sundays, so long as he understands modern medicine when I visit him on Wednseday.
The old "concede micro evolution, deny macro evolution" malarkey: I saw this well debunked here on slashdot like this:
Microwalking is when you walk from one side of the apartment to the other. It takes 1 minute. Macrowalking is when you walk from one side of the country to the other. It could take years. Sure Microwalking happens, we've seen it, but Macrowalking has never been seen, is something completely different, in fact it's impossible.
Spot the logical flaw? Macroevolution is nothing but microevolution on a longer timeline.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
There are lots of posts joking about Vaidhyanathan's name, but has anybody read the interview? It's really quite brilliant. Our culture is being stolen from us, and he explains how it's happening and, more importantly, why it matters.
This interview should be required reading for all our congresscritters and judges.
No sig? Sigh...
That's TOL to you buddy. I guess you're SOL. HTH.
Program Intellivision!
The word you're looking for is 'intelligent', not 'PC'
From elsewhere you posted this: "Creationism probably isn't a scientific explanation. But it might be provable."
It is provable. All that God needs to do to prove it is to come to Earth, prove he's God (easy enough, HE'S GOD...), and say that he did it that way. The point Creationism (and ID, creationism in a mask) is that it is not falsifiable. Hence, it is not a scientific theory, no matter how hard you want it to be one.
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
So you wake up one day and wonder how you got here. Rather than repeat all the rhetoric (I don't think I'm intelligent enough to capture your attention for that long, anyway!), let me make one observation:
Your ultimate success in this life depends on how you relate to the people in your life. If you yourself is your top priority, what a miserable person you will be. If others become your top priority, then -- as if by magic! -- you find fulfillment in serving their needs.
OK, two observations (so I can't count): God is a person, and no He's not dead. How He made the world is still up for debate, and -- oh my! -- what a lively debate it is! But it doesn't really matter much in the long run "how" He did it. What matters is how you relate to Him. Relationship is key. Knowledge only matters as much as it helps you help others -- relationships must be primary! So quit asking "How? Why?" and start asking "How may I serve?"
Or don't. Stay miserable. Your call.
While they're fixing Grub's problem with ROBOTS.TXT, they should also honor the robots META tag
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
"Couldn't they use their brains for a better business model?"
Ha! They've already spent all their resources on staffing the law department. I bet because there are such huge losses they slashed the business department thinking, "Lawyers are a successful business model, right? Riight?"
--I hate big sigs.
Because, that which is not mandated is forbidden, you dirty GNU hippy.
Haven't you been paying ANY attention to Mullah Ashcroft?
Traitorous freethinkers like you will be first up against the wall once Fightin' George Bush completes the Reagan revolution!
It may still be possible to run the Athlon64 in dual-processor mode, in much the same way that the Athlon XP can quite easily work in a dual-processor system but doesn't "support" dual processor setups.
The plan with dual-processors setups on the Athlon64/Clawhammer has always been to split it's single 16-bit HyperTransport link and use it as two seperate 8-bit HT links. This would cut your I/O bandwidth in half (might reduce performance in some applications, but the available bandwidth is still pretty good for the price bracket), but dual-processor systems could work.
FWIW it's not possible to do dual-processing with the Athlon64 without doing some pretty tricky/expensive stuff. Such a chipset would be almost as complicated as making chipsets for a 16-processor Opteron server. Long story short: it ain't gonna happen since a dual-Opteron system would be WAY cheaper.
That being said, dual-Opteron systems don't look liek they'll be all that expensive. The chips will probably be available for about $300-$500 a piece (for an Opteron 244, slower Opterons could be cheaper) by the time the Athlon64 makes it to market, and motherboards could easily be down to the $200 range for a workstation board.
Dude, he only asked for one. ;)
Showoff.
Proof of Evotion Test 1
The easiest of all. Take all the text from this script.
----------
function sayHello(){
echo hello;
}
sayHello();
-------
Proof of Evotion Test 2
Proof of Evotion Test 3
Proof of Evotion Test 4
Final rules
If you get one of these to prove to work, try and get your computer to randomly execute the code, without
Note: These are very specific tests with tons of limits to make this a very simplified test, so these should be able to be accomplished in a very short time period with the speed of modern computers, and should be able to give lots of solid support for the theory of evolution.
Proving that the earth is indeed old enough to allow for evolution.
Already done.
Proving that time can create new genetic information.
Already done.
Providing a single example of evolution (be sure to differ between evolution and natural selection)
Um. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. One way that happens is random mutation followed by natural selection. In other words, you've asked for an example of evolution that is counter to the definition of evolution.
You mean that creation has remained steady and evolution is like a wobbling tower constantly on the brink of scientific disaster? I'd say that chalks up one for creation.
No, that only proves that creationists refuse to accept evidence against their point of view, while scientists are constantly trying to find the right answer, even if it means throwing out the old ways of thinking.
Look at it this way: Gravity used to be though of as a classical Newtonian force. Then Einstein came along and showed that, no, it's a curvature of four-dimensional spacetime. Now quantum theory says that it's caused by an exchange of particles called gravitons. Quantum theory and general relativity appear to both be correct. However, they are mutually incompatible with each other. Does this mean the concept of 'gravity' is on the brink of scientific disaster?
Think of it this way: has the complexity of life become more explainable by chance since Darwin or less?
Sigh. Evolution does NOT proceed by pure chance. Stop beating dead horses.
Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors?
/dev/null
I'm going to chime in on the side of creation. It's part of a faith leap. It does not mean that God could not have done things in some way and then have it interpreted by men a thousand years later. (The OT was to be looked at in several different ways, The NT is mostly letters, love letters really [agape]) Also we are discussing a craftsman who's work is very familar to the vet as well as the ear/nose/throat guy. So any research will be accepted, I should think, if only because those animals are provided by that same craftsman.
Things change, but that does not preclude an event of creation.
Flame me now, I'm ready &>
hal
Yes, I would stop believing in God, should the evidence point to evolution.
a short video
I don't think video cameras existed about the time of creation.
sufficient details of his (or her I suppose) methodology
He spoke and it happened. Feel free to repliacte that in you lab.
As far as you other questions, I'd love to hear the evolutionary explaination for those.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
creationists refuse to accept evidence against their point of view
I'll accept any evidence against my point of view.
Evolution does NOT proceed by pure chance.
And whatever other "natural forces" are required. Gee, you almost make it sound like nature is intelligent.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
There are no examples of random mutation followed by natural selection producing new creatures. Only more specialized versions of existing ones.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
I don't think video cameras existed about the time of creation.
So there is no creation going on now? Any explanation of why? Or is this one of those mysteries where you need to consult religion for the answers?
He spoke and it happened. Feel free to repliacte that in you lab.
Pretty thin explanation there, and I am not really sure what the evidence for this is supposed to be. What makes you think that speaking was involved? What makes you think it was a "he"?
As far as you other questions, I'd love to hear the evolutionary explaination for those.
You can start reading here:
You will find all sorts of interesting evolutionary explanations - everything from explanations of vestigial biological structures, to the oddities of human psychology. Is there anything like this published by Creationists? Anything at all that looks remotely like a use of the theory to solve an actual scientific question?
See, as far as I can tell from reading Creationist literature (and I have read quite a bit) it all amounts to little more than the claim that "God did it" plus a laundry list of objections to the theory of evolution. There is no actual creationist theory. Just that one singular claim. No evidence is ever given for Creationism, no explanation is ever given of what the creator was, no explanation is ever given of how the creating was done or even why it was done, no use of the theory is ever made in answering the kinds of questions that scientists want to answer.
So there is no creation going on now?
I'm not aware of the appearance of any new organisms in the last few thousand years.
Pretty thin explanation there, and I am not really sure what the evidence for this is supposed to be.
You asked what I thought the method was. This is where the evidence leads me. But if you want to debate this you first have to accept intelligent design.
See, as far as I can tell from reading Creationist literature (and I have read quite a bit) it all amounts to little more than the claim that "God did it" plus a laundry list of objections to the theory of evolution. There is no actual creationist theory. Just that one singular claim. No evidence is ever given for Creationism, no explanation is ever given of what the creator was, no explanation is ever given of how the creating was done or even why it was done, no use of the theory is ever made in answering the kinds of questions that scientists want to answer.
Since you're asking for an explantion of the process, creator, or reasons, I would have to stray from your idea of "pure science". The reason I have to do that is simple: if we accept intelligent design (let's say we do for the sake of argument) we then have to choose (again from the best evidence) who did the creating. Then we can look at his/her reasons as given.
If you want to accept ID (even for the sake of argument, then I'l continue.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
This is where the evidence leads me.
Which evidence was that again?
But if you want to debate this you first have to accept intelligent design.
Oh I see, so I have to accept the theory before I get to see any of the evidence. This is what logicians called "begging the question". How can you honestly claim that Creationism is even a theory, let alone a scientific theory, when you admit that there is no way to even start answering the most basic questions about what this so-called theory says, or what the evidence for it is, without first accepting that it is true, and without straying from "pure science".
You don't have to accept that the theory of evolution is true, not even for the sake of argument, in order to understand what it says or how it is supposed to work, or what the evidence for it is.
If you want to engage in philosophical (or even theological) debate then that is fine with me. Just don't pretend you are doing science. And seriously, if your theory starts out with a theological claim, and proceeds with a whole lot of theological speculation based on that claim, then you are doing theology, not science.
This is an old-sk00l flamewar, so everybody gets it evenly. But I think you (jgardn) may be the only hard-core creationist to have posted anything significant in this thread non-anonymously. That's worth a lot!
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
This is the most useless, pathetic, miserable excuse for a troll that I have yet encountered on Slashdot. Be ashamed, be very ashamed.
Don't Panic!
Once a fundie, always a fundie. People said the same thing to me when I was a creationist. :-)
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
No, you're missing th point. There *is* a difference between intelligent design and creation. ID simply claims that all things originated from an intelligent source and makes no claims as to who or why. Creation is a seperate theory that builds on ID and attempts to explain who and why. You can beleive in ID without beleiving in creation.
The evidence for ID is complex natural structures, irreducible complexity, etc. The how it works is that something intelligent made it happen.
I beleive (and you may differ, or course) that philosophy and (if it's reasonable) theology should be based on sound science.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
Um. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. One way that happens is random mutation followed by natural selection. In other words, you've asked for an example of evolution that is counter to the definition of evolution.
No, you missed the point. Random mutations is a modification of existing genes, *not* the creation of new ones that is required for evolution to take place.
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
I'll accept any evidence against my point of view.
OK, have you read all of this yet?
And whatever other "natural forces" are required. Gee, you almost make it sound like nature is intelligent.
All you need is something which selects certain members of a species over others. A change in climate, getting eaten by predators, depletion of food/water, etc.
Have you read all of this?
How does selecting certain members of species over other create new species?
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)