A cool feature would be a network interface you could use to access your saved shows via the computer.
-
That's been solved for quite a while. Streams can be served across a network many ways. There's even a low bandwidth method which re-encodes so slow networks or those portable video players can show the files.
Re:I guess someone at TiVo downloaded Mythtv
on
TiVo to Offer SDK
·
· Score: 1
Actually, let's build on the video-out idea.
hacked TiVos support Media Portal for XBox or PC. [url]http://mediaportal.sourceforge.net/[/url]
I've got 3 DTiVos and a video-out PC in the same system. Combine them with Girder and a decent A/V receiver to get something really nice.
It's also possible to hack the Sony disc carousels to serve tystreams.
TiVo and TivoWeb (regular or Plus) offer remote access to almost all the onscreen commands. You can set recordings, delete recordings, change priorities for the autoscheduling, etc. from any web browser.
Re:I guess someone at TiVo downloaded Mythtv
on
TiVo to Offer SDK
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why stop there?
Direct satellite signal recording Myth NOPE!!! TiVo Yes
DirecTV with TiVo receivers store the actual satellite signal, not a captured version of an analog signal. Most of what you credit to Myth is really a PC with a video out card. May as well claim Myth supports RAR, WMP, QT, Flash, etc. ad nauseum.
Re:We have a Tivo and a Cox DVR
on
TiVo to Offer SDK
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Nothing prevents you from having more than one TiVo. DTiVos have 2 tuners and balance the ToDo list between them.
Yes, the UI is superior to all the competitors. Hack the box to get TivoWebPlus and JavaHMO on it and you're cooking.
RSS has been available for quite a while. Weather, sports stats, caller ID, stodck info and headlines have been available for a few years.
Some form of ToDo list killer based on matches from a list would be great. IOW, run the internal priority process then remove from the ToDo list those entries which match the list.
Parsing the song data from the music channels and pulling the album cover from allmusic or Amazon and putting that on the screen along with persistent album and song title would be nice instead of the stupid blackout.
Shoutcast support including serving across a LAN would be cool. Yeah, like the music mafia wouldn't have a cow over that one...
Theoretically, a web browser could be made but support would have to be for very limited formatting and no motion. Still, wouldn't it be cool to do overlays from IMDB while a movie is on?
JavaHMO has a tic-tac-toe implementation but the hardware isn't capable of sophisticated graphics. You could do nethack but that's about it.
IR keyboard support would be great, especially when searching by titles. That would also allow text-only adventure games. Heh, 20 years later and we go back to 40-column text adventure games.
PiP isn't really supported but maybe some kind of text IM with buddies as text overlay on the lower third of the screen would be possible. Would require keyboard support, though.
The FCC limits, to some extent, what you can view in the U.S. I have DirecTV with the local channels. Would I pay extra to get the raw East and West coast network feeds? You bet. I live on the East coast and sometimes a heavy rainstorm will prevent reception. If I could get the West Coast feed, some things could be picked up when they're broadcast a few hours later on that stream. Same with local channels. The coverage which gives me Charlotte, NC locals also broadcasts DC. Would I pay extra for those? You bet.
The FCC won't allow it. How stupid is that? If I'm already paying for the local stations, I should be able to buy other feeds. It boils down to perceived advertising exposure.
It's not JUST the content providers, the FCC has something to do with it as well.
Now, if Discovery and the BBC would broadcast the same shows on both sides of the pond and if Canada wasn't excluded, boy, that would be nice.
Oh, puhlease (see, I can use overblown melodrama, too), drop the "us scientists" vs. "you Christian idiot" insults. You know nothing of my scholastic or professional background, whatsoever.
"The purpose of a science book is to teach people the skills of prediction based on experience."
No, science books don't teach "skills of prediction", whatever that is. Well, I guess it's possible trend or actuarial analysis is taught in some advanced math classes but that's not what you meant.
Evidence in the archaeological record, coupled with modern experimentation and observation, indicate that evolution is a good explanation, and quite probably occurred. That is not to say that it undeniably did.
I agree with you completely. Your initial post discounted the possibility of creation. It can't be both ways. It can't be both possible and impossible.
I never mentioned causation, on the other hand. Let's swat down that straw man right now.
At this point, I'm not sure what I was trying to express except it must have been related to the assumption that such-and-such creature was an evolution of such-and-such other creature. That implies a linkage. What I was trying to point out there isn't a way to replicate. Each premise is built on another. "Causation" was not the most appropriate word to use.
Creation has massive bodies of evidence in its favor, wether [sic] you are aware of them or not.
I call bullshit. Every 'intelligent design' discussion I've ever seen
Don't you reinforce my statement? Unless you, yourself, have performed exhaustive study of all the literature and thoughts, how could you experience be considered authoritative? Think about that for a moment. It's not an attack on you. I said "wether you are aware of it or not." to which you replied "Every...I've ever seen."
has said "Oh, here's a problem with evolution, there must be a God!" Even were we to suppose that evolution wasn't responsible for whatever phenomenon the theists seized on, automatically assuming intelligent design is invalid.
That illustrates my point. Your comment starts with the presumption of evolution being valid, doesn't it? Yes, it does. I've read plenty of works by well-educatedk, highly-accomplished professionals who don't agree with the theory of evolution, not because they're subhuman dolts brainwashed by a hypnotic preacher figure but because of their analysis of facts. Your statement shows me you haven't read any of them. Does that mean they don't exist? No, it does not.
If you and I see the same phenomenon and you ascribe random chance and I ascribe intelligent design, what makes your views more valid than mine? Does my spiritual belief automatically make me incapable of scientific thought? Does it mean my beliefs are identical to those of the crackpot-of-the-month club and I'm incapable of critical thought? Does it make me a blind automatan as the attacks on me have claimed? Does it mean I'm a simpleton? Of course, not. If you think the best flavor of ice cream is vanilla and I like chocolate the best, am I a simpleton lunatic because I have a different viewpoint? No. Where the learned men of science wrong about bleeding people as a method of healing? Yes. Why is it ok for them to grow and adapt their viewpoints as discoveries and knowledge emerge yet religious people cannot? If there is a God who created the environment in which we live, he created the laws which guide it, right? Yes. Where does the idea that He wouldn't want us to discover all the little inter-relationships come from? Why can't both exist? Where does the idea that religion and science are antagonists come from? (I think it comes from ego problems but that's a whole different topic.) If only one viewpoint is possibly "correct", it is not a "theory", which, by definition, can be incorrect, it is absolutely correct. This is where it transfers into closed-minded dogma.
As to your claims of a straw man on my part, I was addressing the general issue being discussed here, which is "Does 'intelligent design' deserve equal treatment with Evolution?" And until 'intelligent design' advocates get a lot better at giving positive evidence, intelligent design will continue to be far-fetched.
That's your personal bias. What you describe as acceptable practice is little more than indoctrination. You chose to NOT see inter-relations
There are classic examples like the structure of the eyeball and also replications of strata after volcanic eruptions.
Which classically fall apart as soon as any semblance of critical thinking is applied.
Again, how would an eyeball evolve? That would require extra, unneeded tissue which consumes resources. If you know so much about Darwin's theories, why don't you know his own crtiques of them?
Since you can't offer an explanation, you descend into unsubstantiated insults and personal attacks.
No, but there is a whole load of supporting evidence and a grand total of zero credible falsifying evidences,
Zero? Well, I'm certainly not going to accuse you of letting facts get in the way of your dogma.
no matter what your Baptist academy may have lead you to believe.
What was that I typed a little while ago? People ridicule that which they don't understand and that which they fear.
Amazingly predictable.
Uh...no. You're examples starts with "2", not "1". The theory of evolution has a starting point, doesn't it? Even those "simpler, complete eye structures" have to evolve from...nothing...which means they start as...what? Unfunctioning extra tissue which consumes resources and returns...nothing.
No, I do understand the concept of gradual mutation. That's exactly what makes the theory so untenable. Darwin mentioned the eye, didn't he? What did he state about it? All the parts have to be there for it to work, don't they? So...a mess of unusable sub-structures of eyes just happened to randomly mutate on a multitude of creatures, consuming resources until *poof* all of a sudden they had a complete eye? That's nuts.
Yes, I know it's a circular argument, that was part of my point. There are things which are unprovable. Thus, claims that evolution is right and creationism is wrong can't be proven one way or the other. It comes down to a philosophical viewpoint, not a scientific certainty. It's perfectly fine with me if you don't believe in God. If you place a zealous belief that your existance is due to minute probability in an infinite physical realm, it just means you believe in another god, that of random chance.
Google is a search engine for web pages. It's not an exhaustive reference for archaeological information.
Your last sentence really seems like you describing yourself. It certainly doesn't describe me. If you are "living a lie", that's for you to realize, it's doesn't affect me one way or the other.
This is true. No doubt about it. If God exists, he either plays by the rules He created or he doesn't.
What if God isn't meddlesome? If we start with the concept of a capricious God, then, yes, it's a horrible situation in which most rational people would not want to participate. It could lead to a situation in which they could be morally superior to God which leads to ciruclar impossibilities (He can't be inferior and superior...)
Could it be that the projection of being "meddlesome" is a projection which is more related to human frailties than anything else? Sure. People with lunatic ideas about themselves and God create problems, just as lunatic "scientists" create problems. Think, Piltdown Man or the study of how bumps on your head determined where your life would lead you. Copernicus was almost killed for claiming hte Earth rotated around the Sun. "Scientists" of that time were just as blinded as many people today who have mixed their philosophies and hopes of reality into evolution.
There are people on both extremes of the debate who give simple illustrations of their views. Jerry Falwell is certainly quite controversial, and maybe even dangerous, but he has a wonderful example. He says believing in evolution is similar to throwing a handful fo metal into the air expecting that at some point a pocket watch will fall down. It's an elegant argument. Would it be any different if a handful of mixed cells were thrown into the air an infinite number of times in the belief a tree frog would fall back down? Of course not, it's silly.
IOW, why is it so hard for people to accept the possibility that creationism doesn't mean some kind of magic words and *poof*, such and such exists. Yes, I know, Genesis has passages that say, "God said, 'Let there be light.' and it was so..." Well, how many people here know enough about ancient recorded language to know if that was poetic language? Was it a summary?
If you read the score of a football game was 21-11, does that mean it just instantly became the reality or was there a sequence of events which caused it to happen?
If there is a God who created the physical environment in which we live, that would also mean He created the inter-relationships within that environment. That would mean "science", which is essentially an organized method of observation from within the system, is entirely dependent upon the realities which He created, it could not exist in their absence.
So many of the replies in this thread are evolution-only-no-God-you're-stupid-you-have-no-pr oof. "Scientific" thoughts from people who don't accept contrary observations...
Show me one, just ONE verifiable observation of evolution which is a billion years old.
You can't.
At most, you could show some fossil which could be interpreted to mean something, but you can't show causation.
Even so, you're comments show you chose not to think in a scientific manner, you chose one view and refuse to contemplate any possibility.
I will agree with your statement that "Trying to claim equivalence between creationisma nd evolution is silly." in that they could be viewed as mutually exclusive. I don't agree with the rest of that paragraph at all. You've chosen to embrace one possible interpretation while excluding others.
You don't seem to be able to separate the "validity" of your belief in one interpretation of observations from your philosophical viewpoint. If you were, you'd understand just how transparent your post is.
Granted, one weakness, if you will, of this type of forum is the inability to revise a post.
You're still missing the point. Look what you typed in this post: "The evidence of evolution is still there.." What do you mean by "evidence"? You're assigning causation in a situation in which none can be proven. Thus, you're mixing an ideology into "science."
Your next statement does the same thing. "humans' genetic similarity to monkeys, etc. suggest" Suggest? So now it's "suggest" as opposed to "fact." The top of my head is roughly a half-sphere which is quite similar in shape and size to a basketball. Does that "suggest" a common genetic ancestor between a basketball and my head? That's a ludicrous example, of course, but it's used to illustrate the point. You're taking similarity to the level of suggestion which you previously assigned to proof.
The main disagreement, I think, is you are looking at primarily one collection of interpretations of observations and treating it with near certainty while discounting contradictory interpretations. That's certainly allowable, but it's not PROOF.
Creation has massive bodies of evidence in its favor, wether you are aware of them or not. It's just as resilient in the face of discovery as evolutionary theory.
Your last comment is a straw man. You are assigning to me comments I did not make which making them yourself. I never claimed either of the points you stated. You are assigning them to creationism out of your own ignorance. There are massive bodies of evidence which can most easily be interpreted to indicate purposeful design.
Your intellectual dishonesty was assigning the conept of PROOF to a theory which you prefer while discounting contrary indications simply because of your own pernicious whim.
There are classic examples like the structure of the eyeball and also replications of strata after volcanic eruptions.
To be fair, the word "creationist" involves so many possible meanings that it's almost impossible to answer your question.
My assumption is you are asking a serious question, not trolling. Regardless, your choice of words shows you aren't open to an alternative view. Your sentence "Evolutionists have scientifically proven data..." is ludicrous. How do you propose to scientifically prove events which are purported to have happened over millenia? Scientific proof requires replication. There is a huge difference between causation and correllation.
Macro evolution would require the negation of the second law (I think it's the second, don't remember right now) which holds that entropy increases. Just how would living creatures increase in complexity so as to take advantage of future enivronmental circumstances? Answer, they wouldn't. Porcupine quills serve as a protection against predators. Why then haven't mice or rats developed quills? They're also eaten by predators.
It's one thing to put together collections of physical specimens which show a morphing of physical characteristics and quite another to PROVE anticipatory change or genetic structure.
There's a whole body of written works which are chock full of examples to illustrate purposeful design. If you really want to find out, you have to go beyond pseudo-academic biological sources and get to core aspects of matter. I don't remember the name of the group right now but you should be able to find works from a group of physicists and astrophysicists which discuss such things as the unique aspect of the betn water molecule and its relationship to carbon-based life and also unique aspects of carbon.
Recently, Discovery Times channel had a re-broadcast of a show which discussed the Ten Plagues in Egypt and discussed how a small change in the enivronment could have led to all of them happening. I missed part of it but recall the basic premise was a remote volcano could have caused a bacterial explosion in the water which led to red bloom which chased frogs out of the water and there was also something about the practice of grain eaten only by the first-born sons being stored close enough to the river such that the bacteria could have contaminated it and the Hebrews didn't have access to that grain, etc.
That's certainly a far more plausible scenario, given that it would have God making a minor change in the ecological balance which would have led to a sequence of events. Granted, if you start with the premise that God exists and is omnipotent, he COULD turn water totally into blood but that would violate the physical laws in which He has placed us.
To return to your statement, no, there is NO scientific proof that evolution has happened. There is only an annecdotal collection of hypotheses with an attendant philosophical belief.
Buhahahaha!!! There's nothing like "coopting" language when claiming others have "coopted" it, is there?
Theory is speculation. Theory is not fact. This thread uses the written English language and, as such, must adhere to actual definitions of words.
Neither creation nor macro evolution (as opposed to micro evolution which is similar to creating breeds of animals or the classic experiment of breeding fruit flys) can be "proven" through documentation nor through duplication.
"Empirical observation" WTF is that? That would be speculative assignment of causational relationship in the absense of direct observation, wouldn't it? That would mean it's...speculation, a guess based on some observed data.
Both creationism and evolution are conjecture whose proponents cite various facts, observations, and probablilities to promote the supposed legitimacy of their claims.
Not only is this a shill site, the author doesn't know the difference between lossy and lossless audio formats. Notice how they suggest FLAC might replace WMA.
Slashdot Mirror
A cool feature would be a network interface you could use to access your saved shows via the computer.
-
That's been solved for quite a while. Streams can be served across a network many ways. There's even a low bandwidth method which re-encodes so slow networks or those portable video players can show the files.
Actually, let's build on the video-out idea.
hacked TiVos support Media Portal for XBox or PC. [url]http://mediaportal.sourceforge.net/[/url]
I've got 3 DTiVos and a video-out PC in the same system. Combine them with Girder and a decent A/V receiver to get something really nice.
It's also possible to hack the Sony disc carousels to serve tystreams.
TiVo and TivoWeb (regular or Plus) offer remote access to almost all the onscreen commands. You can set recordings, delete recordings, change priorities for the autoscheduling, etc. from any web browser.
Why stop there?
Direct satellite signal recording
Myth NOPE!!!
TiVo Yes
DirecTV with TiVo receivers store the actual satellite signal, not a captured version of an analog signal. Most of what you credit to Myth is really a PC with a video out card. May as well claim Myth supports RAR, WMP, QT, Flash, etc. ad nauseum.
Nothing prevents you from having more than one TiVo. DTiVos have 2 tuners and balance the ToDo list between them.
Yes, the UI is superior to all the competitors. Hack the box to get TivoWebPlus and JavaHMO on it and you're cooking.
RSS has been available for quite a while. Weather, sports stats, caller ID, stodck info and headlines have been available for a few years.
Some form of ToDo list killer based on matches from a list would be great. IOW, run the internal priority process then remove from the ToDo list those entries which match the list.
Parsing the song data from the music channels and pulling the album cover from allmusic or Amazon and putting that on the screen along with persistent album and song title would be nice instead of the stupid blackout.
Shoutcast support including serving across a LAN would be cool. Yeah, like the music mafia wouldn't have a cow over that one...
Theoretically, a web browser could be made but support would have to be for very limited formatting and no motion. Still, wouldn't it be cool to do overlays from IMDB while a movie is on?
JavaHMO has a tic-tac-toe implementation but the hardware isn't capable of sophisticated graphics. You could do nethack but that's about it.
IR keyboard support would be great, especially when searching by titles. That would also allow text-only adventure games. Heh, 20 years later and we go back to 40-column text adventure games.
PiP isn't really supported but maybe some kind of text IM with buddies as text overlay on the lower third of the screen would be possible. Would require keyboard support, though.
Well, OK, if we've come that far, blog overlay.
The FCC limits, to some extent, what you can view in the U.S. I have DirecTV with the local channels. Would I pay extra to get the raw East and West coast network feeds? You bet. I live on the East coast and sometimes a heavy rainstorm will prevent reception. If I could get the West Coast feed, some things could be picked up when they're broadcast a few hours later on that stream. Same with local channels. The coverage which gives me Charlotte, NC locals also broadcasts DC. Would I pay extra for those? You bet.
The FCC won't allow it. How stupid is that? If I'm already paying for the local stations, I should be able to buy other feeds. It boils down to perceived advertising exposure.
It's not JUST the content providers, the FCC has something to do with it as well.
Now, if Discovery and the BBC would broadcast the same shows on both sides of the pond and if Canada wasn't excluded, boy, that would be nice.
Well, I for one prefer the "perfect" women as portrayed on SpikeTV. Sure beats what I see grazing around here.
...must have run out of hackaday posts to copy...
We've removed the hackaday reposts and added a sophisticated marketing news filter!
This is the SECOND repeat of a hackaday post in less than 24 hours.
That makes 3 or 4 in as many days.
How about something original, not plagiarized from another site WHICH WAS PROMOTED ON SLASHDOT A LITTLE WHILE AGO!!!!
This is the second or third thread in as many days which are really just pointing to something which was on "hack a day" earlier.
You truly believe Christians are incapable of understanding science?
You're a bigot.
Oh, puhlease (see, I can use overblown melodrama, too), drop the "us scientists" vs. "you Christian idiot" insults. You know nothing of my scholastic or professional background, whatsoever.
"The purpose of a science book is to teach people the skills of prediction based on experience."
No, science books don't teach "skills of prediction", whatever that is. Well, I guess it's possible trend or actuarial analysis is taught in some advanced math classes but that's not what you meant.
You really are a small person.
I agree with you completely. Your initial post discounted the possibility of creation. It can't be both ways. It can't be both possible and impossible.
At this point, I'm not sure what I was trying to express except it must have been related to the assumption that such-and-such creature was an evolution of such-and-such other creature. That implies a linkage. What I was trying to point out there isn't a way to replicate. Each premise is built on another. "Causation" was not the most appropriate word to use.
Don't you reinforce my statement? Unless you, yourself, have performed exhaustive study of all the literature and thoughts, how could you experience be considered authoritative? Think about that for a moment. It's not an attack on you. I said "wether you are aware of it or not." to which you replied "Every...I've ever seen."
That illustrates my point. Your comment starts with the presumption of evolution being valid, doesn't it? Yes, it does. I've read plenty of works by well-educatedk, highly-accomplished professionals who don't agree with the theory of evolution, not because they're subhuman dolts brainwashed by a hypnotic preacher figure but because of their analysis of facts. Your statement shows me you haven't read any of them. Does that mean they don't exist? No, it does not.
If you and I see the same phenomenon and you ascribe random chance and I ascribe intelligent design, what makes your views more valid than mine? Does my spiritual belief automatically make me incapable of scientific thought? Does it mean my beliefs are identical to those of the crackpot-of-the-month club and I'm incapable of critical thought? Does it make me a blind automatan as the attacks on me have claimed? Does it mean I'm a simpleton? Of course, not. If you think the best flavor of ice cream is vanilla and I like chocolate the best, am I a simpleton lunatic because I have a different viewpoint? No. Where the learned men of science wrong about bleeding people as a method of healing? Yes. Why is it ok for them to grow and adapt their viewpoints as discoveries and knowledge emerge yet religious people cannot? If there is a God who created the environment in which we live, he created the laws which guide it, right? Yes. Where does the idea that He wouldn't want us to discover all the little inter-relationships come from? Why can't both exist? Where does the idea that religion and science are antagonists come from? (I think it comes from ego problems but that's a whole different topic.) If only one viewpoint is possibly "correct", it is not a "theory", which, by definition, can be incorrect, it is absolutely correct. This is where it transfers into closed-minded dogma.
That's your personal bias. What you describe as acceptable practice is little more than indoctrination. You chose to NOT see inter-relations
What was that I typed a little while ago? People ridicule that which they don't understand and that which they fear. Amazingly predictable.
Uh...no. You're examples starts with "2", not "1". The theory of evolution has a starting point, doesn't it? Even those "simpler, complete eye structures" have to evolve from...nothing...which means they start as...what? Unfunctioning extra tissue which consumes resources and returns...nothing.
People ridicule that which they don't understand and that which threatens them.
The theory (not FACT) of evolution doens't threaten me. Why does the theory of creation threaten you so much?
I addressed the mixture of philosophy and theory combined with dogmatic derision of a competing theory. You attack personally.
Guess that makes you the person who's got a weak foundation, doesn't it? Yup.
No, I do understand the concept of gradual mutation. That's exactly what makes the theory so untenable. Darwin mentioned the eye, didn't he? What did he state about it? All the parts have to be there for it to work, don't they? So...a mess of unusable sub-structures of eyes just happened to randomly mutate on a multitude of creatures, consuming resources until *poof* all of a sudden they had a complete eye? That's nuts.
Yes, I know it's a circular argument, that was part of my point. There are things which are unprovable. Thus, claims that evolution is right and creationism is wrong can't be proven one way or the other. It comes down to a philosophical viewpoint, not a scientific certainty. It's perfectly fine with me if you don't believe in God. If you place a zealous belief that your existance is due to minute probability in an infinite physical realm, it just means you believe in another god, that of random chance.
Google is a search engine for web pages. It's not an exhaustive reference for archaeological information.
Your last sentence really seems like you describing yourself. It certainly doesn't describe me. If you are "living a lie", that's for you to realize, it's doesn't affect me one way or the other.
It's still illegal to jam cell phones in the U.S., isn't it?
This is true. No doubt about it. If God exists, he either plays by the rules He created or he doesn't.
r oof. "Scientific" thoughts from people who don't accept contrary observations...
What if God isn't meddlesome? If we start with the concept of a capricious God, then, yes, it's a horrible situation in which most rational people would not want to participate. It could lead to a situation in which they could be morally superior to God which leads to ciruclar impossibilities (He can't be inferior and superior...)
Could it be that the projection of being "meddlesome" is a projection which is more related to human frailties than anything else? Sure. People with lunatic ideas about themselves and God create problems, just as lunatic "scientists" create problems. Think, Piltdown Man or the study of how bumps on your head determined where your life would lead you. Copernicus was almost killed for claiming hte Earth rotated around the Sun. "Scientists" of that time were just as blinded as many people today who have mixed their philosophies and hopes of reality into evolution.
There are people on both extremes of the debate who give simple illustrations of their views. Jerry Falwell is certainly quite controversial, and maybe even dangerous, but he has a wonderful example. He says believing in evolution is similar to throwing a handful fo metal into the air expecting that at some point a pocket watch will fall down. It's an elegant argument. Would it be any different if a handful of mixed cells were thrown into the air an infinite number of times in the belief a tree frog would fall back down? Of course not, it's silly.
IOW, why is it so hard for people to accept the possibility that creationism doesn't mean some kind of magic words and *poof*, such and such exists. Yes, I know, Genesis has passages that say, "God said, 'Let there be light.' and it was so..." Well, how many people here know enough about ancient recorded language to know if that was poetic language? Was it a summary?
If you read the score of a football game was 21-11, does that mean it just instantly became the reality or was there a sequence of events which caused it to happen?
If there is a God who created the physical environment in which we live, that would also mean He created the inter-relationships within that environment. That would mean "science", which is essentially an organized method of observation from within the system, is entirely dependent upon the realities which He created, it could not exist in their absence.
So many of the replies in this thread are evolution-only-no-God-you're-stupid-you-have-no-p
Show me one, just ONE verifiable observation of evolution which is a billion years old.
You can't.
At most, you could show some fossil which could be interpreted to mean something, but you can't show causation.
Even so, you're comments show you chose not to think in a scientific manner, you chose one view and refuse to contemplate any possibility.
I will agree with your statement that "Trying to claim equivalence between creationisma nd evolution is silly." in that they could be viewed as mutually exclusive. I don't agree with the rest of that paragraph at all. You've chosen to embrace one possible interpretation while excluding others.
You don't seem to be able to separate the "validity" of your belief in one interpretation of observations from your philosophical viewpoint. If you were, you'd understand just how transparent your post is.
Uh...no. Read what you typed initially.
Granted, one weakness, if you will, of this type of forum is the inability to revise a post.
You're still missing the point. Look what you typed in this post: "The evidence of evolution is still there.." What do you mean by "evidence"? You're assigning causation in a situation in which none can be proven. Thus, you're mixing an ideology into "science."
Your next statement does the same thing. "humans' genetic similarity to monkeys, etc. suggest" Suggest? So now it's "suggest" as opposed to "fact." The top of my head is roughly a half-sphere which is quite similar in shape and size to a basketball. Does that "suggest" a common genetic ancestor between a basketball and my head? That's a ludicrous example, of course, but it's used to illustrate the point. You're taking similarity to the level of suggestion which you previously assigned to proof.
The main disagreement, I think, is you are looking at primarily one collection of interpretations of observations and treating it with near certainty while discounting contradictory interpretations. That's certainly allowable, but it's not PROOF.
Creation has massive bodies of evidence in its favor, wether you are aware of them or not. It's just as resilient in the face of discovery as evolutionary theory.
Your last comment is a straw man. You are assigning to me comments I did not make which making them yourself. I never claimed either of the points you stated. You are assigning them to creationism out of your own ignorance. There are massive bodies of evidence which can most easily be interpreted to indicate purposeful design.
Your intellectual dishonesty was assigning the conept of PROOF to a theory which you prefer while discounting contrary indications simply because of your own pernicious whim.
You obviously haven't researched this that much.
There are classic examples like the structure of the eyeball and also replications of strata after volcanic eruptions.
To be fair, the word "creationist" involves so many possible meanings that it's almost impossible to answer your question.
My assumption is you are asking a serious question, not trolling. Regardless, your choice of words shows you aren't open to an alternative view. Your sentence "Evolutionists have scientifically proven data..." is ludicrous. How do you propose to scientifically prove events which are purported to have happened over millenia? Scientific proof requires replication. There is a huge difference between causation and correllation.
Macro evolution would require the negation of the second law (I think it's the second, don't remember right now) which holds that entropy increases. Just how would living creatures increase in complexity so as to take advantage of future enivronmental circumstances? Answer, they wouldn't. Porcupine quills serve as a protection against predators. Why then haven't mice or rats developed quills? They're also eaten by predators.
It's one thing to put together collections of physical specimens which show a morphing of physical characteristics and quite another to PROVE anticipatory change or genetic structure.
There's a whole body of written works which are chock full of examples to illustrate purposeful design. If you really want to find out, you have to go beyond pseudo-academic biological sources and get to core aspects of matter. I don't remember the name of the group right now but you should be able to find works from a group of physicists and astrophysicists which discuss such things as the unique aspect of the betn water molecule and its relationship to carbon-based life and also unique aspects of carbon.
Recently, Discovery Times channel had a re-broadcast of a show which discussed the Ten Plagues in Egypt and discussed how a small change in the enivronment could have led to all of them happening. I missed part of it but recall the basic premise was a remote volcano could have caused a bacterial explosion in the water which led to red bloom which chased frogs out of the water and there was also something about the practice of grain eaten only by the first-born sons being stored close enough to the river such that the bacteria could have contaminated it and the Hebrews didn't have access to that grain, etc.
That's certainly a far more plausible scenario, given that it would have God making a minor change in the ecological balance which would have led to a sequence of events. Granted, if you start with the premise that God exists and is omnipotent, he COULD turn water totally into blood but that would violate the physical laws in which He has placed us.
To return to your statement, no, there is NO scientific proof that evolution has happened. There is only an annecdotal collection of hypotheses with an attendant philosophical belief.
Buhahahaha!!! There's nothing like "coopting" language when claiming others have "coopted" it, is there?
Theory is speculation. Theory is not fact. This thread uses the written English language and, as such, must adhere to actual definitions of words.
Neither creation nor macro evolution (as opposed to micro evolution which is similar to creating breeds of animals or the classic experiment of breeding fruit flys) can be "proven" through documentation nor through duplication.
"Empirical observation" WTF is that? That would be speculative assignment of causational relationship in the absense of direct observation, wouldn't it? That would mean it's...speculation, a guess based on some observed data.
Both creationism and evolution are conjecture whose proponents cite various facts, observations, and probablilities to promote the supposed legitimacy of their claims.
Your post is intellectually dishonest.
Oh, great, now we get to hear complaints that the U.S. is now hogging all the world's water...
Not only is this a shill site, the author doesn't know the difference between lossy and lossless audio formats. Notice how they suggest FLAC might replace WMA.