As a coworker once said to me, you know you've hit the big time when your name is in such common use that people no longer capitalize it. We should all be so lucky.
Google "reservoir effect" and C-14 together and see what turns up. As past posters have pointed out, this is a well known special case. The dating method is perfectly usable if the people carrying out the tests know what they're doing.
This just goes to show you that doing some research before playing the arrogance card is usually a good idea.
So many people have done things like this to try to enlighten, and they become suppressed, and the world takes a reactive approach to security, instead of a proactive one.
Perhaps the person who is going about solving the problem "the wrong way" is the person who makes his point by doing damage instead of helping to fix the problem? It seems to me that this isn't society's fault.
Was I the only one who was left wondering how much poetry you can write by using each letter only once? My guess is that vowels are the limiting factor...
Re:Enough to change my life...
on
Odds-on Science
·
· Score: 1
I've just added you to my friends list.:)
Cool. Now just post your account numbers and wait for the big win.:)
Sounds like Vegas. Try to count cards? You're banned for life.
To be fair, you get to stop playing with them when they're beating you. It seems only fair that the other party gets to do the same, even if the odds are in their favor overall.
I recommend taking a peek at this page to get an idea of how the relevant dating systems work. The first section has some interesting data on asteroids. It isn't carbon dating (which is only good for a few thousand years), but the system is similar. Many people cry "assumption" when the system is first described, but they don't seem to understand that those assumptions are actually validated as part of the test. Note the first figure on the page.
Before using loaded words like "guesstimate" and making sarcastic references to something being "gospel" don't you think it would be good to actually examine the logic involved? Your reference to carbon dating clearly points out that you haven't done that, so it's hardly fair for you to make such flippant remarks. Having a healthy dose of skepticism will often earn you respect in scientific circles, but a lot of people seem to think that abrupt dismissal of anything they don't understand under the guise of being a "free thinker" works just as well. The "I'm smarter than you because you blindly accept what scientists say while *I* choose to dismiss them without consideration" attitude doesn't make you look smart--it makes you look like a jerk.
As somebody who spends quite a bit of time coding in ruby, I can honestly say that it never got me a job. However, there are times when what you can do with a tool is more important than what other people think you can do with it. I like to think that actual results still matter more than promised results every once in a while.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think that cell phone companies deserve much of the bad press they get. It's not just people being pissed off that they're stuck in contracts. I've observed (on a very regular basis) that AT&T Wireless had what I liked to call the "laziness charge." That was the fee for the service that the "computer added by mistake" every few months--the fee that they got to keep if you didn't notice it or were too lazy to get it removed. As another poster mentioned, I've never seen "the computer" remove a service charge by accident.
I think that contracts are the cause, but not directly. Once you have somebody in a contract that says you get their money no matter how crappy your service is, you can abuse your customers all you want. I'm waiting for banks to start doing this. The "You're my bitch" contract model would be ideal for a bank's "random fee for no extra services" business model.
Here's what follows from that: Your goods are no more competitive than they were when you weren't circumventing US employment law. You're making no more money than you did when you weren't circumventing US employment law. Thus, the incentive to circumvent US employment law goes away. The customers are either going to pay for additional taxes or additional worker benefits. If the taxes are imposed at the right rates, there should be no difference.
The "explosion" model is overly simplistic (or so I'm told by people who know more physics than I). Think of the whole universe (including "empty space") as expanding rather than just matter zooming away from a point explosion. The analogy I was given (and I think it's a very good one) is: Imagine you're a raisin somewhere in a loaf of rising raisin bread. Any raisin anywhere else in the bread appears to be moving away from you. That doesn't mean that you (or any other raisin, necessarily) is in the middle of the bread. You see expansion going on everywhere.
It's probably a good idea to at least make a good faith effort at becoming one before telling the real experts that they're wrong, no?
But you need to hear both sides of the story. It's like saying most people use microsoft so it is the best and it is the right way to do things, instead of looking into it for yourself.
I don't see anybody here saying that they haven't looked into you. You're just assuming that they haven't.
In the past creationist have not always given the best answers to the questions from evolutionist. Doesn't make evolution any more true.
That's correct. However, it does strongly indicate that the creationist model can't stand on its own scientific merit.
Its like saying everyone uses Microsoft because it is better then open source, Instead of looking into it for yourself.
Well, if in this analogy evolution = microsoft and creation = open source, it's more like this: People are going with Microsoft because it works pretty well and hasn't been shot down yet, and open source is obviously fatally flawed.
Again, there is a big difference between failure to identify and false identification. The system failed to identify subjects 4% of the time. It did *not* identify them as somebody else. That's because of the huge keyspace and the rigorous statistical tests the system uses for confirming a match (again, the papers are available, along with Dr. Daugman's commentary on the difference between these two problems).
A 4% miss rate on identification isn't that big of a deal. In fact, it's quite good for image processing. Hell, I type my password into a computer incorrectly about 4% of the time (or at least very nearly that often), causing the computer to fail to identify me.
The point is, when your eyes tear up, the system may very well say, "I don't recognize you." It won't say, "He's a terrorist! Take him down!"
Bear in mind that the iris keys are 1024 bits in length, so you have quite a population of possible keys, and the system doesn't simply "round" to the closest hit. Your key must fail a fairly rigorous test of statistical independence in order for the system to declare a match. Odds are, the system will simply end up claiming that you're a new entry in the database rather than identifying you as somebody else.
If you're interested in the math, the way the system works is well documented. Google "John Daugman" for his papers on the subject. The mathematical objections people have are not nearly as significant as they make them out to be.
I just had a read of the article that you quoted from talkorigins and I feel that they're doing quite a bit of handwaving to give credibility to what they are saying. They talk about classifying the animals using some sort of phylogeny and then by doing this you can group systems together into a hierarchy... yet this is to be expected in both an evolutionary and creationist model anyway, so it does not support either side.
I'm not sure what you mean by "expected in an evolutionary and creationist model" in this case. Does that mean that if there were no nested hierarchy, the creationist model would have to be rejected, or does it simply mean that it, like every other possible observation, is consistent with an all powerful deity doing whatever it wants?
Grouping into phylogenies is about grouping on shared characteristics, whether those characteristics are genetic or physical. So is it really surprising that once we've done this we can keep grouping our subgroups into supergroups? This is to be expected.
The point is not only that we can use physiological traits to group organisms, but that the genetics backs it up by showing clear evidence for inherited genetic information. Most interesting is the fact that DNA that does not code for any proteins at all (but simply goes along "for the ride" by being passed down to an organisms progeny) is consistent with such common heritage. In fact, it is this "junk DNA" (for which creationists insist that there is probably a use, but at the same time are unable to demonstrate any possible use) that is most useful in tracking ancestry. DNA that has nothing to do with physical traits would not be expected to correlate with physiological relationships between organisms without some common ancestry, but it does.
What is more interesting in these phylogenies is not the similarities between groups in the particular schema that you've come up with, but the similarities between distantly related groups... this is where evolutionary theory needs to come up with parallel evolution of similar structures in individuals that are only distantly related on the particular taxonomy used. And then if you start looking at genetic similarities you start running into problems such as the similarity between a Zebra Fish's DNA and a Human DNA and also noticing that we have DNA that is more similar to a rats than to a cats... these don't make sense in any yet developed phylogenies that assume common descent.
These claims get tossed about (usually without references) frequently, but they never explain their criteria for determining genetic "distances." The question is, what method of determining "closeness" is being used, and how does it reflect on ancestry. I highly recommend googling around for pages on Duane Gish's famous "bullfrog" claim. It's a prime example of the lack of depth and general poor scholarship associated with these claims.
The article also mentions a common descent of languages... whereas this is simply not true... most linguists would agree that research shows that the worlds languages actually descend from approximately 17 different non-related root languages.
I'm afraid linguistics is a field I can't address with any real intelligence, and I don't remember that section of the article (I'm looking for it, but I can't seem to locate it). I know that there are a number of references to the origins of speech in general, but roots of languages are outside my field. Another good topic for the talk.origins newsgroup.
As scientists we've got to be careful not to interpret evidence in the hope of finding support for our theory but rather to try to be objective. I believe if, for a moment, a given scientist would ignore the implications of the creationist framework (i.e. the existence of a God), and examine his science in light of the creationist framework, that he/she would find some (in my opinion more) support for this framework than the evolutionary one.
There won't be any of there articles published in a the standard peer reviewed journals... not because of lack of trying, but rather because of the overt bias of these journals against creationist arguments (one of the challenges of serious creationist researchers).
The appeal to overt bias is one that comes up regularly, but surely somebody must have been able to publish something within the past century and a half. My suggestion is this: when creationists complain about bias in the literature, ask them to provide a draft of a paper they submitted and got rejected. They should have some letter of rejection to back it up. I've only seen one example of this (from ~30 years ago... and whether it was overt bias or something else is debatable). Nobody else has been able to come up with the evidence. From what I've seen, it's not that they're getting rejected by a propaganda machine. It's that they're not submitting. If somebody could produce letters of rejection that lend creedence to the conspiracy theory, he or she should come forward. Otherwise, if you don't play the game, you don't get to complain about the rules.
However there would likely be material in the technical journal called TJ which is a forum for creationist scientists to publish their papers in a peer reviewed journal, it is published by Answers In Genesis.
Speaking of overt bias, I have a question for you. How many of the overtly biased journals you refer to have a statement of faith? AiG's statement of faith says, among other things:
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
. ..
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Basically, "Any research we do will always produce the same conclusion." I would call that second quote the nail in the coffin for any objectivity from AiG's TJ. If you can find any similar statement regarding evolutionary theory from any mainstream journal, I'd love to see it. As it stands, I see no reason to regard anything AiG puts out as a real scientific publication.
Without doing an exhaustive search I can refer you to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10september2001.asp, which is not a peer reviewed article, but it does provide a good starting point. Nonetheless I believe an increase in specified complexity is a fairly obvious concept.
An obvious concept, perhaps, but not mathematically defined, and certainly not rigorously connected to biology. Even the summary you provide indicates over and over again that such applications are rough. Having a "touchy feely" definition and then applying the rigors of information theory to it is very much a garbage in, garbage out proposition. My favorite quote from the whole thing is, "Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed)." The obvious weakness here is that the chemical mechanisms that turn DNA "information" into proteins don't see "information" in the same way information theorists do. Even duplicated information which adds nothing in the eyes of a mathematician will (usually) tack amino acids onto a protein sequence, changing the protein that comes out of the system. That's simply how the mechanisms work, information theory or not. The author points out that there is
Well just because someone is a creationist doesn't mean that they're not a scientist. As specified complexity is a term used by creationists and avoided by evolutionists I think the best explanation of it would likely be given by a creationist... so I'm sure what you've found on google will help explain it to you if you can't work it out for yourself.
True, there are a number of creationist scientists, but I challenge you to find any of their work on "specified complexity" (or creationism in general) referenced in any of the standard peer reviewed journals. I've done some digging on the topic, and as best I can tell, it's a term that only sounds like a hard, measurable critereon. Lots of references are thrown out to "specified complexity" these days, but a way of measuring and detecting it is clearly still in the works.
There is not enough space here to lay out the theory of creation in full (just as you couldn't do justice to the theory of evolution in a single paragraph), but I'm sure google will explain it to you.
The problem is, it must be possible to find evidence that refutes a theory. Creation theory lacks this as any observation can arguably support creation by an omnipotent being. A classic example is the dichotomy you bring up: young universe vs. old universe. Young universe theorists need to explain how light from distant stars has arrived for us to observe in such a short period of time. The physics has historically confounded them, but an appeal to light being "stretched" or created "in place" by a divine creator still works. The problem is, at that point, the tools of science fail and we move into the realm of philosophy and speculation. That's not to say that it can't be true. It just can't be considered a scientific theory as it is completely untestable.
A good place to start looking at the nested hierarchy stuff is: here.
That whole document is fascinating, but you'll probably want to focus on Part I.
First, my field is MIS. Yes, I've read the posts about worthless MIS profs, and I'm probably one of them. You can reference my many GNU apps I've contributed to OSS. I've contributed patches to several OSS projects, most recently Spyce. I know assembly, C, C++, currently teach Java, python, and a few others. Yes, I've programmed several genetic algorithms for use in real situations. However, I was trained in the scientific method just like other scientists. Most PhDs are very much the same as far as science goes. But no, I'm not a specialist in evolution or biology. I should have been more clear.
The point is not whether you're a good programmer or not. The point is that you got caught inflating your credentials by implying that you have some background in biology. Unless your undergrad education was in biology or a related field, you don't. Sorry.
I'll put my engineering background up against yours as a "science" education any day, but I would never claim to be a scientist. I've studied physics, biology, and chemistry at the college level, and it's obvious that I've studied more math than you. But my fundamental background is not in biology, and I would not consider calling myself a scientist, especially not in a discussion where the topic is as far from mine as biology.
You may be an interested amateur as many of us are. That's fine. The claim that "most PhDs are very much the same as far as science goes" is just wrong, though. It may be true when comparing an economist to a history professor, but surely you see the difference between that and implying a backround in biology when you're an MIS professor? Could you work on a dental filling for me as well?
Do you have a revision for us, or are you just going to let the whole issue drop? It's pretty clear that you're way out of your depth here.
Slashdot isn't necessarily the ideal forum for this, but if you want people to help you with your math and ideas about mutations, you might try the talk.origins newsgroup. There are a lot of people there who do know what they're talking about, and the topic of the forum is exactly this one.
One thing I've always wanted to see on a cell phone: An LED flashlight. I could care less about a PDA with a color screen, camera, or other expensive non-feature that just drives the cost up and bulk of my phone. It's a phone! It shouldn't require a 300 page manual!
A flashlight would be cool, though. It would require minimal extra lighting. The phone battery is more than capable of driving an excellent LED light. I actually *need* a flashlight on a regular basis, and I always have my phone with me. It seems like a perfect match.
There sure is. You're limited by how fast your signal can propagate through the gates and by how much heat your dissipate (power is proportional to clock frequency for any given IC, IIRC). Liquid nitrogen sure helps, but something will give eventually. If nothing else, you can't get around the fact that electrons can only move so fast.
Just something worth mentioning: the butcher bird usually does eat what it impales. I think the theory is that it's feet are not strong enough to hold the prey while the bird tears it apart. It's actually a practical thing. Frequently, the heads (or whatever part was used to hook the prey) of the critters are left behind, though. Creepy stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
As a coworker once said to me, you know you've hit the big time when your name is in such common use that people no longer capitalize it. We should all be so lucky.
This just goes to show you that doing some research before playing the arrogance card is usually a good idea.
And then watch the person GO TO JAIL for stealing your stuff. The fact that it was easy doesn't make it any less wrong or illegal.
Perhaps the person who is going about solving the problem "the wrong way" is the person who makes his point by doing damage instead of helping to fix the problem? It seems to me that this isn't society's fault.
Was I the only one who was left wondering how much poetry you can write by using each letter only once? My guess is that vowels are the limiting factor...
Cool. Now just post your account numbers and wait for the big win. :)
To be fair, you get to stop playing with them when they're beating you. It seems only fair that the other party gets to do the same, even if the odds are in their favor overall.
Before using loaded words like "guesstimate" and making sarcastic references to something being "gospel" don't you think it would be good to actually examine the logic involved? Your reference to carbon dating clearly points out that you haven't done that, so it's hardly fair for you to make such flippant remarks. Having a healthy dose of skepticism will often earn you respect in scientific circles, but a lot of people seem to think that abrupt dismissal of anything they don't understand under the guise of being a "free thinker" works just as well. The "I'm smarter than you because you blindly accept what scientists say while *I* choose to dismiss them without consideration" attitude doesn't make you look smart--it makes you look like a jerk.
As somebody who spends quite a bit of time coding in ruby, I can honestly say that it never got me a job. However, there are times when what you can do with a tool is more important than what other people think you can do with it. I like to think that actual results still matter more than promised results every once in a while.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think that cell phone companies deserve much of the bad press they get. It's not just people being pissed off that they're stuck in contracts. I've observed (on a very regular basis) that AT&T Wireless had what I liked to call the "laziness charge." That was the fee for the service that the "computer added by mistake" every few months--the fee that they got to keep if you didn't notice it or were too lazy to get it removed. As another poster mentioned, I've never seen "the computer" remove a service charge by accident.
I think that contracts are the cause, but not directly. Once you have somebody in a contract that says you get their money no matter how crappy your service is, you can abuse your customers all you want. I'm waiting for banks to start doing this. The "You're my bitch" contract model would be ideal for a bank's "random fee for no extra services" business model.
Here's what follows from that: Your goods are no more competitive than they were when you weren't circumventing US employment law. You're making no more money than you did when you weren't circumventing US employment law. Thus, the incentive to circumvent US employment law goes away. The customers are either going to pay for additional taxes or additional worker benefits. If the taxes are imposed at the right rates, there should be no difference.
The "explosion" model is overly simplistic (or so I'm told by people who know more physics than I). Think of the whole universe (including "empty space") as expanding rather than just matter zooming away from a point explosion. The analogy I was given (and I think it's a very good one) is: Imagine you're a raisin somewhere in a loaf of rising raisin bread. Any raisin anywhere else in the bread appears to be moving away from you. That doesn't mean that you (or any other raisin, necessarily) is in the middle of the bread. You see expansion going on everywhere.
It's probably a good idea to at least make a good faith effort at becoming one before telling the real experts that they're wrong, no?
But you need to hear both sides of the story. It's like saying most people use microsoft so it is the best and it is the right way to do things, instead of looking into it for yourself.
I don't see anybody here saying that they haven't looked into you. You're just assuming that they haven't.
In the past creationist have not always given the best answers to the questions from evolutionist. Doesn't make evolution any more true.
That's correct. However, it does strongly indicate that the creationist model can't stand on its own scientific merit. Its like saying everyone uses Microsoft because it is better then open source, Instead of looking into it for yourself.
Well, if in this analogy evolution = microsoft and creation = open source, it's more like this: People are going with Microsoft because it works pretty well and hasn't been shot down yet, and open source is obviously fatally flawed.
A 4% miss rate on identification isn't that big of a deal. In fact, it's quite good for image processing. Hell, I type my password into a computer incorrectly about 4% of the time (or at least very nearly that often), causing the computer to fail to identify me.
The point is, when your eyes tear up, the system may very well say, "I don't recognize you." It won't say, "He's a terrorist! Take him down!"
Bear in mind that the iris keys are 1024 bits in length, so you have quite a population of possible keys, and the system doesn't simply "round" to the closest hit. Your key must fail a fairly rigorous test of statistical independence in order for the system to declare a match. Odds are, the system will simply end up claiming that you're a new entry in the database rather than identifying you as somebody else.
If you're interested in the math, the way the system works is well documented. Google "John Daugman" for his papers on the subject. The mathematical objections people have are not nearly as significant as they make them out to be.
Errr... and barring that, it's vengeance from an angry God for the sins of the users, right?
Or killing people who are attempting to commit murder...
I'm not sure what you mean by "expected in an evolutionary and creationist model" in this case. Does that mean that if there were no nested hierarchy, the creationist model would have to be rejected, or does it simply mean that it, like every other possible observation, is consistent with an all powerful deity doing whatever it wants?
Grouping into phylogenies is about grouping on shared characteristics, whether those characteristics are genetic or physical. So is it really surprising that once we've done this we can keep grouping our subgroups into supergroups? This is to be expected.
The point is not only that we can use physiological traits to group organisms, but that the genetics backs it up by showing clear evidence for inherited genetic information. Most interesting is the fact that DNA that does not code for any proteins at all (but simply goes along "for the ride" by being passed down to an organisms progeny) is consistent with such common heritage. In fact, it is this "junk DNA" (for which creationists insist that there is probably a use, but at the same time are unable to demonstrate any possible use) that is most useful in tracking ancestry. DNA that has nothing to do with physical traits would not be expected to correlate with physiological relationships between organisms without some common ancestry, but it does.
What is more interesting in these phylogenies is not the similarities between groups in the particular schema that you've come up with, but the similarities between distantly related groups... this is where evolutionary theory needs to come up with parallel evolution of similar structures in individuals that are only distantly related on the particular taxonomy used. And then if you start looking at genetic similarities you start running into problems such as the similarity between a Zebra Fish's DNA and a Human DNA and also noticing that we have DNA that is more similar to a rats than to a cats... these don't make sense in any yet developed phylogenies that assume common descent.
These claims get tossed about (usually without references) frequently, but they never explain their criteria for determining genetic "distances." The question is, what method of determining "closeness" is being used, and how does it reflect on ancestry. I highly recommend googling around for pages on Duane Gish's famous "bullfrog" claim. It's a prime example of the lack of depth and general poor scholarship associated with these claims.
The article also mentions a common descent of languages... whereas this is simply not true... most linguists would agree that research shows that the worlds languages actually descend from approximately 17 different non-related root languages.
I'm afraid linguistics is a field I can't address with any real intelligence, and I don't remember that section of the article (I'm looking for it, but I can't seem to locate it). I know that there are a number of references to the origins of speech in general, but roots of languages are outside my field. Another good topic for the talk.origins newsgroup.
As scientists we've got to be careful not to interpret evidence in the hope of finding support for our theory but rather to try to be objective. I believe if, for a moment, a given scientist would ignore the implications of the creationist framework (i.e. the existence of a God), and examine his science in light of the creationist framework, that he/she would find some (in my opinion more) support for this framework than the evolutionary one.
The problem is not tha
The appeal to overt bias is one that comes up regularly, but surely somebody must have been able to publish something within the past century and a half. My suggestion is this: when creationists complain about bias in the literature, ask them to provide a draft of a paper they submitted and got rejected. They should have some letter of rejection to back it up. I've only seen one example of this (from ~30 years ago... and whether it was overt bias or something else is debatable). Nobody else has been able to come up with the evidence. From what I've seen, it's not that they're getting rejected by a propaganda machine. It's that they're not submitting. If somebody could produce letters of rejection that lend creedence to the conspiracy theory, he or she should come forward. Otherwise, if you don't play the game, you don't get to complain about the rules.
However there would likely be material in the technical journal called TJ which is a forum for creationist scientists to publish their papers in a peer reviewed journal, it is published by Answers In Genesis.
Speaking of overt bias, I have a question for you. How many of the overtly biased journals you refer to have a statement of faith? AiG's statement of faith says, among other things:
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. .
. .
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Basically, "Any research we do will always produce the same conclusion." I would call that second quote the nail in the coffin for any objectivity from AiG's TJ. If you can find any similar statement regarding evolutionary theory from any mainstream journal, I'd love to see it. As it stands, I see no reason to regard anything AiG puts out as a real scientific publication.
Without doing an exhaustive search I can refer you to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /negative_10september2001.asp, which is not a peer reviewed article, but it does provide a good starting point. Nonetheless I believe an increase in specified complexity is a fairly obvious concept.
An obvious concept, perhaps, but not mathematically defined, and certainly not rigorously connected to biology. Even the summary you provide indicates over and over again that such applications are rough. Having a "touchy feely" definition and then applying the rigors of information theory to it is very much a garbage in, garbage out proposition. My favorite quote from the whole thing is, "Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed)." The obvious weakness here is that the chemical mechanisms that turn DNA "information" into proteins don't see "information" in the same way information theorists do. Even duplicated information which adds nothing in the eyes of a mathematician will (usually) tack amino acids onto a protein sequence, changing the protein that comes out of the system. That's simply how the mechanisms work, information theory or not. The author points out that there is
True, there are a number of creationist scientists, but I challenge you to find any of their work on "specified complexity" (or creationism in general) referenced in any of the standard peer reviewed journals. I've done some digging on the topic, and as best I can tell, it's a term that only sounds like a hard, measurable critereon. Lots of references are thrown out to "specified complexity" these days, but a way of measuring and detecting it is clearly still in the works.
There is not enough space here to lay out the theory of creation in full (just as you couldn't do justice to the theory of evolution in a single paragraph), but I'm sure google will explain it to you.
The problem is, it must be possible to find evidence that refutes a theory. Creation theory lacks this as any observation can arguably support creation by an omnipotent being. A classic example is the dichotomy you bring up: young universe vs. old universe. Young universe theorists need to explain how light from distant stars has arrived for us to observe in such a short period of time. The physics has historically confounded them, but an appeal to light being "stretched" or created "in place" by a divine creator still works. The problem is, at that point, the tools of science fail and we move into the realm of philosophy and speculation. That's not to say that it can't be true. It just can't be considered a scientific theory as it is completely untestable.
A good place to start looking at the nested hierarchy stuff is: here.
That whole document is fascinating, but you'll probably want to focus on Part I.
The point is not whether you're a good programmer or not. The point is that you got caught inflating your credentials by implying that you have some background in biology. Unless your undergrad education was in biology or a related field, you don't. Sorry.
I'll put my engineering background up against yours as a "science" education any day, but I would never claim to be a scientist. I've studied physics, biology, and chemistry at the college level, and it's obvious that I've studied more math than you. But my fundamental background is not in biology, and I would not consider calling myself a scientist, especially not in a discussion where the topic is as far from mine as biology.
You may be an interested amateur as many of us are. That's fine. The claim that "most PhDs are very much the same as far as science goes" is just wrong, though. It may be true when comparing an economist to a history professor, but surely you see the difference between that and implying a backround in biology when you're an MIS professor? Could you work on a dental filling for me as well?
Slashdot isn't necessarily the ideal forum for this, but if you want people to help you with your math and ideas about mutations, you might try the talk.origins newsgroup. There are a lot of people there who do know what they're talking about, and the topic of the forum is exactly this one.
A flashlight would be cool, though. It would require minimal extra lighting. The phone battery is more than capable of driving an excellent LED light. I actually *need* a flashlight on a regular basis, and I always have my phone with me. It seems like a perfect match.
There sure is. You're limited by how fast your signal can propagate through the gates and by how much heat your dissipate (power is proportional to clock frequency for any given IC, IIRC). Liquid nitrogen sure helps, but something will give eventually. If nothing else, you can't get around the fact that electrons can only move so fast.
Just something worth mentioning: the butcher bird usually does eat what it impales. I think the theory is that it's feet are not strong enough to hold the prey while the bird tears it apart. It's actually a practical thing. Frequently, the heads (or whatever part was used to hook the prey) of the critters are left behind, though. Creepy stuff.