Excellent! Realization of a problem is the first step towards recovery. Perhaps, you should work on your "sensitivity". Bigotry, prejudice, and arrogance have historically been considered undesirable traits to posess.
You know, for a person who found it "amazing" that 1E40 crops up more than once - which is nothing more than modern day numerology - you really are a self-righteous son of a bitch. I'm polite to you and you use it as an excuse to be condescending to me.
That'll teach me to be polite to your disgusting ilk. Go back to your bible, fundie boy. Your philosophy is second rate; you were amazed by the anthrophic principle, of all things!
You may assume I am ignorant, but your venomous remarks cast no doubt that you are a bigot. You automatically assault an individual for having beliefs in something you do not and you assume that having such beliefs is a sign of mental inferiority. That makes you arrogant. Your posts are so poisoned by your personal dislike for theology that it makes you prejudiced.
No argument from me! I'm definitely prejudiced against creationists. I don't deny it. I stated this clearly and unambiguously a number of times.
Creationists are certainly mentally inferior. I grow increasingly confident of this belief with every encounter. Afterall, in the past two days I've seen the following from creationists
Evolution is represented by Adolf Hitler.
Evolution is all about chance.
Thermodynamics proves evolution wrong.
Dawkins is an idiot.
Patterson is an idiot.
Gould is an idiot.
Creation scientists have falsified evolution.
False claims against Lewin and Patterson.
Everybody is conspiring against creationists!
Argument from incredulity.
Creationism is nonsense. The creationists aren't just a fradulent nuisance to science, but they are an increasing embarrassment to theists! Even the Pope endorses evolution! Despite loud vehement cries to the contrary, creationism is not a valid scientific theory. Hell, it's not even scientific!
But I think you judge me unfairly when you claim that I dislike theology. Nobody ever asked me what my religious beliefs were. I have no problem with creation. I just have a big problem with creationists and particularly with so-called "creation scientists".
You are entitled to your opinions, but they are just that....your opinions. They are inflammatory and offensive to some (a direct violation of the posting rules on slashdot), but more importantly they only serve to make you look stupid. Next time, try posting your dissension with some class, otherwise you risk your "voice" falling on deaf ears.
I think the recent threads prove without any doubt that there's no value in being civil with creationists. The creationist ignores reasoned responses and valid evidence. The creationist's ears are already "deaf" so being rude won't make a lick of difference and being civil would just give false validity to their delusion.
And while my opinion is that evolution is correct, it is also the opinion of the greater part of the scientific community. The recent "Steve petition" amusingly demonstrated that scientists overwhelmingly support evolution, not creationism. You are free to think I'm "stupid" but I consider myself in good company.
Now we both know this scenerio is unlikely. Do you really believe that this hypothetical situation would disprove evolution?
Yes, because it would show a transitional path between birds and mammals which we know from the existing evidence is completely impossible. It would completely disprove evolution. Some other theory would be required.
Anyway, if this evidence did indeed show up it would be fairly easy to reswizzle evolution to fit this new piece of evidence, it would be a major reswizzle, but not impossible.
Perhaps, but that's not a problem. Science does that all the time. It happened to physics less than 100 years ago. It's not an admission of failure, nor an indication of deception, but a sign of healthy scientific progress.
I don't see how this would disprove evolution.
Well, as I've said before, that's because you are ignorant. Apparently you think this is an insult but it's not. You can't be expected to know everything. Being ignorant about 99% of the world is perfectly normal. But it's when you make the argument by incredulity - I can't imagine how this would work therefore it is false! - that you make yourself look silly.
My basic premise from this series of posts that you are not willing to discuss is that evolution is generally not possible to disprove.
If it wasn't possible to disprove evolution then it wouldn't be a science. I've already given you 5 links explaining this one. You aren't reading them.
For example, if you find a transitional fossil that is half bird and half mammal then you have disproven evolution.
All evidence will be interpreted with the apriori assumption that evolution occurred. You already established it is considered fact by the scientific community.
That's right. It's fact, just like the world is round is fact, and the Sun is hot is fact. I know you have trouble with this but it's fact.
I would love to know your educational background. I suppose you won't tell me?
Shrug. I think qualifications are overrated, but if you insist, two bachelors (one with honours) from the Australian National University.
Actually, I don't think I would be able to trust you anyway if you decided to tell me.
Why? Because I disagree with you? Don't you see the problem here is not me, but you?
And just in case you're too lazy to click the links and read the damn text - I know from experience that most of you fundie types are really that lazy - here is a sound-bite that even you can't ignore:
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." [Stephen Jay Gould]
Clear enough? Or perhaps you'd like to claim that the late great Stephen Jay Gould was not a scientist?
When I did my Biology degree (10 years ago) one of the first statements made, when teaching Evolution, was that Chimps have DNA that is up to 98% the same as humans.
Amazing! They've been saying this for years. The problem is that the human genome was only mapped a couple of years ago, and I'd bet they haven't mapped the Chimps - so how did/do they know this?
I claim you are a liar. Even a first year biology student is taught how the similarity was determined. It's an estimate based on the rate of hybridization. It's simply impossible for you to have a biology degree and not know this.
"A quick method of measuring changes in DNA structure is to mix the DNA from two species, then measure by how many degrees of temperature the melting point of the mixed (hybrid) DNA is reduced below the melting point of pure DNA from a single species. The method is generally referred to as 'DNA hybridization.' As it turns out, a melting point lowered by one degree centigrade means that the DNAs of the two species differ by roughly 1 percent." [http://www.netherworld.com/~walkerk1/chap1.html]
And before you make the obvious (and incorrect) claim that hybridization isn't an accurate measure, you would do well to educate yourself on the topic. If you or anybody else could disprove hybridization you would be famous overnight.
That's because you're ignorant. I gave you the information you needed. You either don't understand it or you choose to deny it is real.
You have resorted to some name calling, and derisive writing,
Oh yes, but I told you I was going to do this. I don't debate with creationists. I just insult them. My goal isn't to educate you; it's to make you feel like shit. I did warn you.
... all that I can say about you is that you seem to be upset. Why are you upset?
I'm definitely not upset. This is perhaps the funniest exchange I've had all week. It's great to bash the creationists. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, though without any guilt. I can only imagine that you think I'm upset because of projection.
Why does it matter to you if I hold to ideas that are contridictory to yours?
Because you won't keep your ignorant and incorrect ideas to yourself. You insist on yelling them from the rooftops. If you just shut your mouth there wouldn't be a problem. It's when you speak authoratively about things you don't understand that people - like myself - feel the need to kick you back into your place.
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 1
They BETTER master a SACD or DVD Audio disc correctly because we are talking about new formats with a signal-to-noise ratio of over 110 dB and left-to-right separation probably almost as large, and one wrong move during the mastering process is going to result in audiable gaffes that stand out like a sore thumb.
Uhhh, care to explain how CDDA doesn't have a 100% separation of left and right? DVD-A and SACD have 100% separation too, not a mere 110dB worth. Partial left-right separation is only of concern with so-called quadraphonic vinyl (a scam if ever there was one) and dolby pro logic 1 and 2 (not dolby digital).
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 1
Also, although the theoretical limit of human hearing is 20kHz, a sufficiently high pitched sound that is not a sine wave will have many harmonics that are above the 20 (or 22.05) kHx limit - these do color the sound, and their unnatural filtering contributes to the often-commented harshness of digital.
They do not colour the sound. They are proven by repeated experiment to be inaudible. Playing two frequencies, one audible and one inaudible, is indistinguishable from playing the single audible frequency. This is the fundamental theory that drives all modern audio compression.
All periodic signals are combinations of sine waves. A square wave has harmonics that continue into infinity, but only the frequencies below ~20kHz are audible. The output from a CD player is filtered through a 20kHz bandpass to remove aliasing frequencies. The square wave is no longer square but it still sounds like a square wave!
I agree with both your points. Surround sound is far more important than 24/96 and CD bandwidth is not perfect. But I have to disagree with these repeated claims that inaudible frequencies make any difference to the audio. Perhaps they make a difference in other ways - eg, maybe the body can detect subsonic and supersonic frequencies by touch - but it makes no difference to the audio.
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 1
I have a rated-perfect ear. I can tell the diff between an MP3 made from vinyl and an MP3 made from CD.
So can I. You just listen for the hiss and the pops and that tells you which one came from vinyl.
Also, I find it hilarious that you're an audiophile with MP3s as your source material.
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 1
Listen to a recording of a regular symphonic orchestra on a normal Compact Disc and then listen to a recording of a symphonic orchestra with SACD or DVD Audio disc; the CD recording sounds quite harsh because at treble frequencies as CD's doesn't sample the higher frequencies smoothly.
Pfft, pseudo-science babble. Yes, there are problems with CD digital audio as the audio frequency approaches half the sampling frequency, but these problems have nothing to do with "smooth sampling". The problems stem from quantisation errors caused by 16-bit resolution.
If you have infinite resolution then you can PERFECTLY reproduce every audio frequency up to half the sampling rate. Appropriate band-passing of the signal before sampling allows you to use less-than-infinite bits with very little distortion. Far less distortion than would be introduced by other components in the system.
The real reason you can hear the difference between SACD/DVD-A and CDDA is because the studios are putting a lot more effort into the mastering process for the new formats. They want the audiophiles to hear the difference. They want people to believe the technology is actually an improvement, when in reality it's just a better mastering for an individual disc.
"Despite widespread agreement to the contrary among audio writers who refuse to do controlled testing, there is no reason that the extra bits, helpful as they may be to the marketing of DVD-based audio, should actually make any audible difference 99.99% of two-channel material, especially older analog recordings. More frequent sampling, which intuitively seems like it would make the waveform more accurate, in fact does nothing but extend the high-frequency response farther into inaudible regions. More bits per word, similarly, do not decrease distortion, but only lower the noise floor below the already inaudible -92 dBFS of 16-bit CD audio"
[http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces200 1_ebradmeyer.htm]
In any case, "sampling smoothness" is an audiophile phrase and it has no meaning.
You have not done much to indicate to me that you really understand what you believe to be true.
If somebody educated said this, I'd be upset. Fortunately the only people who tell me this are the same people who believe Columbus was alone in his conviction that the Earth was round, that thermodynamics disproves evolution, and that Dr Gould was an uneducated fool who didn't know anything about evolution! The barbs don't sting because the venom is so impotent.
It is a problem when you hold the writings of anyone in such high regard that you are not willing to analyze them with a critical mind.
But you are not critical. You are merely ignorant. You have raised silly arguments that show an obvious lack of understanding.
And it's not that I hold the writings in high regard. I hold the work in high regard. Why? Because scientists have invested a huge amount of effort into critically examining the evidence and the theory. 1000s of scientists have reviewed evolution, spanning 100 years of work, across at least 4 major disciplines of science (paleontology, cosmology, geology, and biology), and there has been NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence to refute the theory! Let's make this point very clear. NOT A SINGLE speck of evidence.
Oh, I know you don't believe that. You think there is plenty of dispute. You've already used a couple of the bigger chestnuts yourself. What you don't seem to understand is these "disputes" you have are merely ignorance. Claims like "evolution defies thermodynamics" aren't valid points of contention: they merely demonstrate the claimant has no understanding of either evolution or thermodynamics. They are "arguments" that only impress other ignorant people.
Also keep this in mind. There is NOT A SINGLE published paper on creationism in any respectable scientific journal. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Why is this? Is it because the journals are biassed? It's a conspiracy to hide the truth? Hardly. All scientists would take great delight in tearing down evolution. It's like a badge of honour to be the guy who destroyed a theory. Think of Einstein who managed to falsify a 400 year old theory of physics.
If you think all the answers have been found then you don't understand the science.
I don't. Strawman argument.
I do believe in God though, so I hope you see how impossible it is for me to hold to any theory that undermines this belief.
And I've made a serious blunder in trying to reason with you. I know from experience this will achieve nothing. You're a creationist. You refuse to accept evidence. You simply deny everything that disagrees with your desired belief: Gould is wrong, science is wrong, scientists are wrong, evidence is wrong. I know you won't bother to read these links just like you didn't read the links before. Not critically. At best you'll load it in a browser, scan for words that support your own beliefs, and ignore the rest. You're such a textbook case of the creationist that it's almost worth taking a photo and using you as a poster-child.
The only positive benefit I see is that even the creationists, such as yourself, are starting to realise that "creationist" is a label they don't want to be associated with.
Strong signals in your receiver's bandwidth will prevent you from hearing weak signals - this is called "desense". It's one of the things that makes CDMA and TDMA cellular harder to do than dumb old AMPS - a phone near the tower has to be told to speak softly, so that the tower can hear distant phones.
Does this mean denial-of-service attacks against CDMA towers are easier than similar attacks against AMPS? Just tell your phone to "speak" as loudly as possible and ignore the tower's request to be quiet? I'm assuming AMPS is what GSM phones use? I recently read a New Scientist article on how GSM cells and phones work, but it didn't go into any detail for CDMA.
Well, I DO do this stuff for a living, as well as being a computer geek and a ham.
But really, $1300 for the digitizer card is a bit steep - I work with a system using a 40 MSamp/sec 12 bit flash converter and Intersil 50214. The Intersil is about $30, and I don't think the flash converter is much more. Add a $50 FPGA to do the interfacing to the PCI bus, and you could do scatter-gather busmastering capture to the main system pretty easily.
Well I don't do this stuff for a living, and I'm exceedingly jealous of people who do:-) However I reckon the reason that the card costs $1300 instead of a mere $200 is because the company is trying to recoup R&D costs as well as turn a tidy profit. Prices will drop as demand increases and from what you're saying those prices could drop as low as $200. I can't wait!
I have read these attacks against creation 'science'. My argument regarding chance does not ignore the concepts of natural selection, but natural selection does not explain how inorganic materials combined in a series of events to form life.
The sources you quote also simplify the real issues, and in no way offer proof that we evolved.
You wouldn't understand the non-simplified explanation. What do you want? A free education at a tertiary level until you can understand the science? Be serious. Sometimes you have to accept that you're not going to be given everything on a silver platter. Invest your own time and effort to understand it or shutup.
They actually do a disservice to science. The fact that researchers hold certain aspects of evolution to be fact is not right, that is my point. I have read and enjoyed many of Stephen J. Gould essays, and the argument quoted here [talkorigins.org] is not necessarily valid just because Mr. Gould wrote it.
And this really sums you guys up. You complain about the simplified explanations but you have neither the experience nor the education to understand the non-simplified explanations. When the (late great) biologist Dr Gould tries to explain it in terms that even a layman can understand... you incredibly claim he's wrong!
You can't be convinced. This is why I don't bother with debate. There's no sense debating because you demand the impossible: you want to be given the non-simplistic explanation but you don't want to invest the time and effort to understand it.
... but I never said I was a creationist.
Liar.
People who do not want to believe in God tend to believe in Evolution, and those who believe in God tend to believe in some kind of intelligent design. Some people feel it is reasonable to straddle the fence between the two competing ideas, but I personally have given up on that strategy. It is either or for me.
In my opinion the assumption that life came to be without the guiding hand of a designer is impossible to be convinced of.
It is impossible to interpet these two claims of yours as anything other than you are a creationist. Unless you've somehow devised a new form of ID which doesn't involve creation!
No, which is why I don't bother. Creationists purposefully ignore contrary evidence, overstep their area of expertise, fradulently claim skills and knowledge that they do not have, and repeat "arguments" that have already been shown to be false.
As I've said before, I don't debate with creationists. I treat them with the contempt I'd reserve for any religious nutcase who perverts science and attacks education. I ridicule them. I attack them. My purpose is not to enlighten you, but to make you stop talking.
In the end how can you say that evolution is a fact?
Becauseitisafact. That you bring up the tired old argument of "evolution is just chance" is exactly why I don't bother with debate. You repeat this refuted argument as if it's still a matter for debate! It is not.
It would probably still be impossible, but I'm neither a Biblical scholar nor a seamstress. The "camel hair rope" mistranslation is covered in a number of books. You can even find it with Google; now that you know the keywords to look for.
Thank you for making my point: "They are the best interpretations of the known evidence".
i.e. "I/We don't have all the facts yet but I'm going to believe this way anyway". If that isn't a statement of faith I don't know is.
You didn't even understand my point, so don't be so naive as to think I'm agreeing with you.
Your civil war example is a non sequitur. There were humans there, they observed it, they recorded it in a multitude of ways.
Were you there? Did you observe it? Did you record it in a multitude of ways? If not, you're basing your "belief" in the civil war on assumptions. Who knows, maybe that evidence was faked! Perhaps God created the universe with all the civil war evidence in place to fool you!
Until someone comes up with a time machine that allows us to go back and see (and return to tell the tale) any theory of origins will require a measure of faith from its adherents.
Bullshit. To take this to the logical extreme you are claiming that archeology, history, geology and paleontology require "faith". Absolute nonsense. You don't need faith to interpret the data and propose the theory that best fits. When that theory manages to withstand all attempts to discredit it, the theory becomes fact. Not in the mathematical sense of "beyond doubt" but in the scientific sense of "beyond all reasonable doubt".
You don't need faith in evolution just like you don't need faith in the American civil war. They are the best interpretations of the known evidence. That's all.
Evolution and Creation share the same problem. They are both improvable.
Evolution is a fact with several real-world examples this past decade. Evolution is most certainly "improvable": if it wasn't then it could never be labelled a science. Falsifiable hypothesis is the keystone of all science.
Regardless of the weight of evidence to support evolution available now or at any point in the future it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to prove that God was not involved. In reality it comes down to a metaphysical discussion on the existence of God, and both are not scientific.
Evolution is science. It says nothing about the existence of God. Having all the answers is not a pre-requisite for being scientific. You are being ignorant when you claim otherwise.
Mark 10:25 - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
This is probably a mistranslation. At least some Biblical scholars argue that the original Hebrew was "camel hair rope" rather than "camel". Makes more sense in context and the mistake would be easy to make.
This claim is often taught in public schools - as it was taught to me. I'm glad you pointed out my error, but I would rather you would do it in a respectful manner. Something alone the lines of "I believe your analogy is incorrect. It is a common misconception that opponents of Columbus claimed the world was flat, when in fact it was known at the time that the world was round." would have worked perfectly. Just because I was mistaken about one small fact doesn't mean I am wholly ignorant nor stupid.
You are wholly stupid, and that is evident from the huge number of mistakes you've made, not from this particular mistake. Admittedly this was a huge mistake. You've outright admitted that your education stopped at public school. You never confirm the facts that you taught. You don't research or learn. You simply believe what you are told. It's no wonder that you're a creationist.
When debating, taking the position that your opponent is just stupid usually won't win you any battles. So instead of trying to attack my intelligence I suggest you address the second half of my last post.
This isn't a debate. I'm not going to treat you with respect. Get that through your thick skull. I wouldn't treat a cockroach with respect. If it keeps out of my way, I'll leave it alone. If it tries to eat my food, I'll destroy it. You're a creationist. The lowest form of intellectual life on this planet. If you keep out of my way, I'll leave you alone. But when you try to pervert education and destroy science, then I'll release the dogs of war. I have no respect for your beliefs and I have no respect for you. I'm not here to debate. I don't debate with a cockroach.
Now I'll make another prediction. You'll get indignant and run away. You'll claim "there's no point arguing with you because you don't respect my beliefs". Good riddance. If your beliefs are so fragile that you can't defend them then you don't deserve the opportunity to spout your pseudo-science babble. Go back to the religious tracts and the fundamentalist cults where your kind belongs.
Ultimately, my contrarian viewpoint stems from the fact that evolutionary biologists as a rule react to all criticism with vitriol and derision.
Then you're a bad scientist. You don't judge the theory based on evidence or logic or data. Instead you dismiss the theory based on your personal dislike of the scientists.
And also similar to what was said to Columbus when he claimed the world was round.
How stupid are you people? Columbus didn't claim the world was round; everybody already knew that. He used the fact that the world was round to propose an alternate route to India. The Greeks not only knew the world was round but had already worked out its diameter.
It's a *fact* that you're uninformed. You've already said you're a chemist. A good scientist would recognise his/her boundaries and limitations and not answer authoratively outside his/her field of expertise. You are arrogantly claiming that evolution isn't a fact despite this not being your field of expertise. That makes you either a liar or a bad scientist.
The fact that biologists who ARE experts in this field and ARE very informed claim that evolution is a fact seems to have escaped you. The fact that 14 Nobel Laureates wrote a brief to the Supreme Court saying that evolution is a fact is also apparently beneath you; who are the Nobel Laureates to dispute... bardencj (122074)?
Also note that I despise the argument to authority but I felt the need to beat you into the ground when you raised your own "credentials" before claming that evolution is not a fact.
I find it amazing that the Earth formed at just the right distance from the Sun, with all the necessary stellar material, at the right time in the Sun's life cycle on the main sequence to allow for life to develop. Of course the most amazing component of that thought, is that the stellar material existed in the correct quantities to provide a useful biosphere.
This is the anthropic principle. It's not amazing. It's just obvious. If the stellar material hadn't been "just right" then we would not be here to be amazed by it.
I must admit however, that I don't believe evolution to be a science as is biology or physics
That's because you're ignorant. People who do understand evolution say it's a science. It has falsifiable hypothesis, it makes predictions, it explains the evidence. It is everything that a science should be.
The people who dispute evolution or claim it isn't a science have another agenda; they don't want to accept that their religion is wrong. It's not hard to see the conflict of interest.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, for a person who found it "amazing" that 1E40 crops up more than once - which is nothing more than modern day numerology - you really are a self-righteous son of a bitch. I'm polite to you and you use it as an excuse to be condescending to me. That'll teach me to be polite to your disgusting ilk. Go back to your bible, fundie boy. Your philosophy is second rate; you were amazed by the anthrophic principle, of all things!
No argument from me! I'm definitely prejudiced against creationists. I don't deny it. I stated this clearly and unambiguously a number of times. Creationists are certainly mentally inferior. I grow increasingly confident of this belief with every encounter. Afterall, in the past two days I've seen the following from creationists
Creationism is nonsense. The creationists aren't just a fradulent nuisance to science, but they are an increasing embarrassment to theists! Even the Pope endorses evolution! Despite loud vehement cries to the contrary, creationism is not a valid scientific theory. Hell, it's not even scientific!
But I think you judge me unfairly when you claim that I dislike theology. Nobody ever asked me what my religious beliefs were. I have no problem with creation. I just have a big problem with creationists and particularly with so-called "creation scientists".
I think the recent threads prove without any doubt that there's no value in being civil with creationists. The creationist ignores reasoned responses and valid evidence. The creationist's ears are already "deaf" so being rude won't make a lick of difference and being civil would just give false validity to their delusion.
And while my opinion is that evolution is correct, it is also the opinion of the greater part of the scientific community. The recent "Steve petition" amusingly demonstrated that scientists overwhelmingly support evolution, not creationism. You are free to think I'm "stupid" but I consider myself in good company.
Yes, because it would show a transitional path between birds and mammals which we know from the existing evidence is completely impossible. It would completely disprove evolution. Some other theory would be required.
Perhaps, but that's not a problem. Science does that all the time. It happened to physics less than 100 years ago. It's not an admission of failure, nor an indication of deception, but a sign of healthy scientific progress.
Well, as I've said before, that's because you are ignorant. Apparently you think this is an insult but it's not. You can't be expected to know everything. Being ignorant about 99% of the world is perfectly normal. But it's when you make the argument by incredulity - I can't imagine how this would work therefore it is false! - that you make yourself look silly.
Ho ho ho...
If it wasn't possible to disprove evolution then it wouldn't be a science. I've already given you 5 links explaining this one. You aren't reading them.
For example, if you find a transitional fossil that is half bird and half mammal then you have disproven evolution.
That's right. It's fact, just like the world is round is fact, and the Sun is hot is fact. I know you have trouble with this but it's fact.
Shrug. I think qualifications are overrated, but if you insist, two bachelors (one with honours) from the Australian National University.
Why? Because I disagree with you? Don't you see the problem here is not me, but you?
Here are five links explaining why evolution is a fact.
And just in case you're too lazy to click the links and read the damn text - I know from experience that most of you fundie types are really that lazy - here is a sound-bite that even you can't ignore:
Clear enough? Or perhaps you'd like to claim that the late great Stephen Jay Gould was not a scientist?
I claim you are a liar. Even a first year biology student is taught how the similarity was determined. It's an estimate based on the rate of hybridization. It's simply impossible for you to have a biology degree and not know this.
And before you make the obvious (and incorrect) claim that hybridization isn't an accurate measure, you would do well to educate yourself on the topic. If you or anybody else could disprove hybridization you would be famous overnight.
That's because you're ignorant. I gave you the information you needed. You either don't understand it or you choose to deny it is real.
Oh yes, but I told you I was going to do this. I don't debate with creationists. I just insult them. My goal isn't to educate you; it's to make you feel like shit. I did warn you.
I'm definitely not upset. This is perhaps the funniest exchange I've had all week. It's great to bash the creationists. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, though without any guilt. I can only imagine that you think I'm upset because of projection.
Because you won't keep your ignorant and incorrect ideas to yourself. You insist on yelling them from the rooftops. If you just shut your mouth there wouldn't be a problem. It's when you speak authoratively about things you don't understand that people - like myself - feel the need to kick you back into your place.
Uhhh, care to explain how CDDA doesn't have a 100% separation of left and right? DVD-A and SACD have 100% separation too, not a mere 110dB worth. Partial left-right separation is only of concern with so-called quadraphonic vinyl (a scam if ever there was one) and dolby pro logic 1 and 2 (not dolby digital).
They do not colour the sound. They are proven by repeated experiment to be inaudible. Playing two frequencies, one audible and one inaudible, is indistinguishable from playing the single audible frequency. This is the fundamental theory that drives all modern audio compression.
All periodic signals are combinations of sine waves. A square wave has harmonics that continue into infinity, but only the frequencies below ~20kHz are audible. The output from a CD player is filtered through a 20kHz bandpass to remove aliasing frequencies. The square wave is no longer square but it still sounds like a square wave!
I agree with both your points. Surround sound is far more important than 24/96 and CD bandwidth is not perfect. But I have to disagree with these repeated claims that inaudible frequencies make any difference to the audio. Perhaps they make a difference in other ways - eg, maybe the body can detect subsonic and supersonic frequencies by touch - but it makes no difference to the audio.
So can I. You just listen for the hiss and the pops and that tells you which one came from vinyl.
Also, I find it hilarious that you're an audiophile with MP3s as your source material.
Pfft, pseudo-science babble. Yes, there are problems with CD digital audio as the audio frequency approaches half the sampling frequency, but these problems have nothing to do with "smooth sampling". The problems stem from quantisation errors caused by 16-bit resolution.
If you have infinite resolution then you can PERFECTLY reproduce every audio frequency up to half the sampling rate. Appropriate band-passing of the signal before sampling allows you to use less-than-infinite bits with very little distortion. Far less distortion than would be introduced by other components in the system.
The real reason you can hear the difference between SACD/DVD-A and CDDA is because the studios are putting a lot more effort into the mastering process for the new formats. They want the audiophiles to hear the difference. They want people to believe the technology is actually an improvement, when in reality it's just a better mastering for an individual disc.
In any case, "sampling smoothness" is an audiophile phrase and it has no meaning.
If somebody educated said this, I'd be upset. Fortunately the only people who tell me this are the same people who believe Columbus was alone in his conviction that the Earth was round, that thermodynamics disproves evolution, and that Dr Gould was an uneducated fool who didn't know anything about evolution! The barbs don't sting because the venom is so impotent.
But you are not critical. You are merely ignorant. You have raised silly arguments that show an obvious lack of understanding.
And it's not that I hold the writings in high regard. I hold the work in high regard. Why? Because scientists have invested a huge amount of effort into critically examining the evidence and the theory. 1000s of scientists have reviewed evolution, spanning 100 years of work, across at least 4 major disciplines of science (paleontology, cosmology, geology, and biology), and there has been NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence to refute the theory! Let's make this point very clear. NOT A SINGLE speck of evidence.
Oh, I know you don't believe that. You think there is plenty of dispute. You've already used a couple of the bigger chestnuts yourself. What you don't seem to understand is these "disputes" you have are merely ignorance. Claims like "evolution defies thermodynamics" aren't valid points of contention: they merely demonstrate the claimant has no understanding of either evolution or thermodynamics. They are "arguments" that only impress other ignorant people.
Also keep this in mind. There is NOT A SINGLE published paper on creationism in any respectable scientific journal. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Why is this? Is it because the journals are biassed? It's a conspiracy to hide the truth? Hardly. All scientists would take great delight in tearing down evolution. It's like a badge of honour to be the guy who destroyed a theory. Think of Einstein who managed to falsify a 400 year old theory of physics.
I don't. Strawman argument.
And I've made a serious blunder in trying to reason with you. I know from experience this will achieve nothing. You're a creationist. You refuse to accept evidence. You simply deny everything that disagrees with your desired belief: Gould is wrong, science is wrong, scientists are wrong, evidence is wrong. I know you won't bother to read these links just like you didn't read the links before. Not critically. At best you'll load it in a browser, scan for words that support your own beliefs, and ignore the rest. You're such a textbook case of the creationist that it's almost worth taking a photo and using you as a poster-child.
The only positive benefit I see is that even the creationists, such as yourself, are starting to realise that "creationist" is a label they don't want to be associated with.
Does this mean denial-of-service attacks against CDMA towers are easier than similar attacks against AMPS? Just tell your phone to "speak" as loudly as possible and ignore the tower's request to be quiet? I'm assuming AMPS is what GSM phones use? I recently read a New Scientist article on how GSM cells and phones work, but it didn't go into any detail for CDMA.
Well I don't do this stuff for a living, and I'm exceedingly jealous of people who do :-) However I reckon the reason that the card costs $1300 instead of a mere $200 is because the company is trying to recoup R&D costs as well as turn a tidy profit. Prices will drop as demand increases and from what you're saying those prices could drop as low as $200. I can't wait!
No kidding, because that's abiogenesis and is not covered by evolution.
You wouldn't understand the non-simplified explanation. What do you want? A free education at a tertiary level until you can understand the science? Be serious. Sometimes you have to accept that you're not going to be given everything on a silver platter. Invest your own time and effort to understand it or shutup.
And this really sums you guys up. You complain about the simplified explanations but you have neither the experience nor the education to understand the non-simplified explanations. When the (late great) biologist Dr Gould tries to explain it in terms that even a layman can understand... you incredibly claim he's wrong!
You can't be convinced. This is why I don't bother with debate. There's no sense debating because you demand the impossible: you want to be given the non-simplistic explanation but you don't want to invest the time and effort to understand it.
Liar.
It is impossible to interpet these two claims of yours as anything other than you are a creationist. Unless you've somehow devised a new form of ID which doesn't involve creation!
No, which is why I don't bother. Creationists purposefully ignore contrary evidence, overstep their area of expertise, fradulently claim skills and knowledge that they do not have, and repeat "arguments" that have already been shown to be false.
As I've said before, I don't debate with creationists. I treat them with the contempt I'd reserve for any religious nutcase who perverts science and attacks education. I ridicule them. I attack them. My purpose is not to enlighten you, but to make you stop talking.
Because it is a fact. That you bring up the tired old argument of "evolution is just chance" is exactly why I don't bother with debate. You repeat this refuted argument as if it's still a matter for debate! It is not.
It would probably still be impossible, but I'm neither a Biblical scholar nor a seamstress. The "camel hair rope" mistranslation is covered in a number of books. You can even find it with Google; now that you know the keywords to look for.
You didn't even understand my point, so don't be so naive as to think I'm agreeing with you.
Were you there? Did you observe it? Did you record it in a multitude of ways? If not, you're basing your "belief" in the civil war on assumptions. Who knows, maybe that evidence was faked! Perhaps God created the universe with all the civil war evidence in place to fool you!
Do you understand your silliness now?
Bullshit. To take this to the logical extreme you are claiming that archeology, history, geology and paleontology require "faith". Absolute nonsense. You don't need faith to interpret the data and propose the theory that best fits. When that theory manages to withstand all attempts to discredit it, the theory becomes fact. Not in the mathematical sense of "beyond doubt" but in the scientific sense of "beyond all reasonable doubt".
You don't need faith in evolution just like you don't need faith in the American civil war. They are the best interpretations of the known evidence. That's all.
Evolution is a fact with several real-world examples this past decade. Evolution is most certainly "improvable": if it wasn't then it could never be labelled a science. Falsifiable hypothesis is the keystone of all science.
Evolution is science. It says nothing about the existence of God. Having all the answers is not a pre-requisite for being scientific. You are being ignorant when you claim otherwise.
This is probably a mistranslation. At least some Biblical scholars argue that the original Hebrew was "camel hair rope" rather than "camel". Makes more sense in context and the mistake would be easy to make.
You are wholly stupid, and that is evident from the huge number of mistakes you've made, not from this particular mistake. Admittedly this was a huge mistake. You've outright admitted that your education stopped at public school. You never confirm the facts that you taught. You don't research or learn. You simply believe what you are told. It's no wonder that you're a creationist.
This isn't a debate. I'm not going to treat you with respect. Get that through your thick skull. I wouldn't treat a cockroach with respect. If it keeps out of my way, I'll leave it alone. If it tries to eat my food, I'll destroy it. You're a creationist. The lowest form of intellectual life on this planet. If you keep out of my way, I'll leave you alone. But when you try to pervert education and destroy science, then I'll release the dogs of war. I have no respect for your beliefs and I have no respect for you. I'm not here to debate. I don't debate with a cockroach.
Now I'll make another prediction. You'll get indignant and run away. You'll claim "there's no point arguing with you because you don't respect my beliefs". Good riddance. If your beliefs are so fragile that you can't defend them then you don't deserve the opportunity to spout your pseudo-science babble. Go back to the religious tracts and the fundamentalist cults where your kind belongs.
Then you're a bad scientist. You don't judge the theory based on evidence or logic or data. Instead you dismiss the theory based on your personal dislike of the scientists.
How stupid are you people? Columbus didn't claim the world was round; everybody already knew that. He used the fact that the world was round to propose an alternate route to India. The Greeks not only knew the world was round but had already worked out its diameter.
Are you honestly this ignorant or are you an elaborate troll?
It's a *fact* that you're uninformed. You've already said you're a chemist. A good scientist would recognise his/her boundaries and limitations and not answer authoratively outside his/her field of expertise. You are arrogantly claiming that evolution isn't a fact despite this not being your field of expertise. That makes you either a liar or a bad scientist.
The fact that biologists who ARE experts in this field and ARE very informed claim that evolution is a fact seems to have escaped you. The fact that 14 Nobel Laureates wrote a brief to the Supreme Court saying that evolution is a fact is also apparently beneath you; who are the Nobel Laureates to dispute... bardencj (122074)?
Also note that I despise the argument to authority but I felt the need to beat you into the ground when you raised your own "credentials" before claming that evolution is not a fact.
This is the anthropic principle. It's not amazing. It's just obvious. If the stellar material hadn't been "just right" then we would not be here to be amazed by it.
That's because you're ignorant. People who do understand evolution say it's a science. It has falsifiable hypothesis, it makes predictions, it explains the evidence. It is everything that a science should be.
The people who dispute evolution or claim it isn't a science have another agenda; they don't want to accept that their religion is wrong. It's not hard to see the conflict of interest.