I hate it when non-technical posts get rated as informative. First off, as others here have misstated, rootkits are essentially malicious drivers or kernel-level backdoors. They are *not* exploits, not bugs, and not driver cracks. Rootkits are essentially malware that runs at a higher level than most malware, with the intention of using API-hooking to misreport filesystem, process, and network status. The expertise required to make them is generally several orders higher than DDOS zombies or botnets. Though ironically, that same kind of malware is almost always installed and then subsequently hidden by the rootkit after one is installed.
I only felt it necessary to mention this because of those individuals who seem to think rootkits themselves are exploits to get escalated privileges. While some rootkits get installed via "shatter attacks" and other priviledge escalation exploits, they themselves aren't doing any exploiting.
I haven't the faintest clue why your comment is insightful.
Let me give you some examples of exploits (ie worms) that came out after patches: Blaster, Sasser, Nimda (MS patched this 330 days before the worm actually hit). Code Red is the only one that immediately comes to mind as a worm that hit before the patch, and even in that case, MS didn't know ahead of time that IIS was exploitable. It was 0-day.
In the case of the Plug & Play exploit, it became common knowledge *because* of the patch, which was reversed engineered to see what it fixed.
In the case of the other item, Microsoft acknowledged earlier that spyware companies were already exploiting the java proxy dll 0-day and thus created the patch.
In the first case the patch made the exploit common knowledge, in the second, the common knowledge came before the patch. So the answer to your question is: no.
Don't get me wrong, MS is getting better about patching, and they should be commended for their efforts in finding the java proxy IE exploit "in the wild" on their own without a security company having to release anything, but they don't need to be commended for releasing their regular monthly patches.
Patching for security issues is not something that a vendor is rewarded for. They are expected to do it.
This is from the textbook definition, and found on answers.com. Atheism is not a deistic "religion", but it is a "religion" nonetheless. Some "denominations" even have members that meet on a regular basis as a "congregation".
It's all in which definition you use. You have to keep in mind that the majority of atheists are atheists solely because they despise Christianity and love to meet in groups to talk about how to piss off Christians. There are some, however, like my roommate, that just hate religion and think it's worthless. They don't belong to any atheist forums or other ridiculous things, because they simply don't feel a need to spread their "gospel".
"Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true: My parents' rules were gospel." Source: http://www.answers.com/gospel
Or, God does not exist.
Is there someone wrong with someone's beliefs?
Freedom of religion != Freedom from religion.
I won't even address the rest of what you stated, because it doesn't even come close to arguing the point I made. Flamingos and grebes, two species that don't share the same feathers, color, features like long neck and long legs, or anything, are more closely related genetically than the flamingo is to any other bird, oh, like a swan for instance.
Genetics itself disproves evolution. Refute the point.
Macroevolution is a term used by evolutionists to describe changes in a level at or above species.
Microevolution is essentially, Darwinism.
It is important to draw the distinction, not for the sake of evolution proponents, but evolution opponents. The reason being, few, if any opponents disagree with the darwinism natural selection origins of micro-evolution, but many disagree with macro-evolution.
If changes can occur within a species does not mean that species themselves change. The longer beaked flamingo might live longer, but they remain a flamingo. But it doesn't really matter because the flamingo evolved from a grebe.
With regards to that last link: WHAT THE FSCK ARE EVOLUTIONISTS THINKING? They are totally letting on that genetics is counter to the tenants of our evolution religion.
FACT: Creationism, especially as defined by Christians, is not falsifiable, and thus not a science. FACT: Macro-evolution, especially as defined by atheists, is not falsifiable and thus not a science. FACT: Abiogenesis has never happened and likely will never happen. This is a prerequisite of atheistic evolution. Either that, or "little green men". A supra-majority of polled atheists ironically believe in life outside of our solar system. Those hardcore atheists I have lots of respect for, because it must be difficult for them to tolerate the posers.
My apologies also go out to the evolutionists and darwinists who have had their science hijacked by these fanatical atheists.
802.11s stands to be the next big thing, IMHO. A P2P wireless Internet brings so much more potential and allows "blanketing" of entire areas with much better throughput. I'd be interested in seeing IEEE settle on a standard for that, since there are like 5 competiting protocols for it right now.
Yes, while I would never probably mention FIJA in a real jury selection case, I do offer it as a means for others to get out of their jury duty. My belief is that the mere mention of FIJA is enough to get them interested in jury nullification and looking into the topic more. When people find out, they love to see that they actually have some power, and thus embrace the idea fully.
You don't even have to provide evidence or even know what jury nullification is, that is correct. The four-letter acronym strikes fear into the hearts of all state-lawyer-kind.
Cue the Uranus jokes: "Speaking of size, what about Uranus?" "How can be possible comment on this new planet when we still have yet to send a probe to Uranus?"
Some wise astronomers have tried to change the speech from "your anus" to "urine us" or "you're in us". Unfortunately the planet seems to just be plain doomed as far as American English pronounciation goes.
Then you might get lawyers bickering about whether or not to let you on the patent panel based on your political views.
By the way, if you ever do want to get out of jury duty, just say this: "I'm a member of FIJA". You'll be out in no time, use those extra hours off work for the day to relax.
Here's why: jury nullification. You have the right to issue not guilty, not based solely on guilt or innocence, but also justness of a law. Laws against drugs are a good example of unjust laws, and if the case has anything to do with them and you get called up, saying you're a member of the fully-informed jury association will scare the pants off the district/state attorney. They might even strike to dismiss if you just spell, "F-I-J-A".
Actually, part of the problem is that they can't do that. Skeptical lawyers will use legalspeak to describe a common everyday function, get it patented, and then go to the media with a story. It doesn't happen often, but every so often a lawyer or friend of one does it just to keep them on their toes.
No, it's mostly due to Nintendo not promoting 3rd party games on their platform. They don't promote 3rd party games, people don't buy them, and now they've lost some major support. Producers don't want to make games on systems if the playerbase isn't going to buy it. They also refuse to compete in the "hardware wars".
Nintendo corporates have a huge misconception about what games are. They think video games are for kids. While that was true in the 80s, it is now the 00s and the same kids that played games in the 80s are now *twenty years older*. Most of us can buy a game system by planning a mere month ahead, and since many of us are also still single or only dating/engaged, we have disposable incomes reserved for gaming and more gaming.
But Mario isn't going to cut it anymore. I remember telling my neighbor the next thing you'd know they'd be making a Mario RPG, and sure enough they eventually did in 1996: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mario_games
I think it's kind of ridiculous to think that nostalgia is going to sell game systems. Nintendo *really* needs to wake up and either look at putting out superior game systems based on hardware, or moving to handhelds and expanding on their current titles.
Remember that in Japan, Nintendo is seen as the "handheld system corporation" that makes a console system primarily for Americans. After the Video game crash of '83 Atari basically died, and Nintendo was really the only company willing to test the US market again. Just because they were the first certainly doesn't mean that they were the best.
Also, Nintendo and Sega will continue to be around for forever. Remember that Nintendo was founded in 1889, and Sega in 1940.:)
What a horrible question. Reminds me of another one:
Is Duke Nukem Forever going to come out?
Everyone's got an opinion on it, and yet you expect reasonable responses are going to be the ones modded up? No, instead, you'll get about four "+5, Funny" comments and maybe one "+5, Informative" with some scattered "+5, Interesting"'s that are really about different topics, like how cool BSD's license is and some classroom examples where no one knew what open source software was anyway.
If you want legitimate discussion, ask the question in a context. Like this: "Can Commercial Software roadblocks still allow Open Source developers to provide sufficient products in the near and long term?"
Another good one: "Is Open Source development keying in on certain specific applications (Apache, PHP, MySQL), causing stagnation in development of other equally-important and every-growing more challenging OS softwares (Samba, Wine, PERL)?"
Knowledge is power. They teach this even in first grade. In my school, they taught it in kindergarten.
Your comments show why you are not a mechanic. Its actually a simple idea. If the mechanic "price gouges" you on your car, you simply do it back when he walks in to get his computer fixed.
I feel appalled at how much I get paid for doing things that seem simple, like changing a registry key, and etc. That kind of work *doesn't even involve changing a nut and washer*, but do I think I should be compensated for it? Certainly!
$500 is a bit excessive for knowledge and labor, but if a mechanic charged me a hundred for fixing one thing with a simple nut and explained what to watch out for in the future so it didn't happen again, I'd gladly hand it over to him and thank him for not dragging out the work over the next two days.
Can we just have a "War on Video Games" now? I've been waiting like 7 years for a politician to say it, and they haven't done it yet. Just imagine the fun I can have with that sound bite.
Please address the other points I made. I addressed each of yours to the full and I find it very disappointing that you would insult my time and effort by not addressing them.
Abiogenesis is a ridiculous notion and never been observed. Not only that, but many have tried duplicating it, purposefully, and failed. Because of this, Evolution is a belief system, similar to creationism. I don't even need Borel's law to state this, I merely need to point to the failure of evolutionists to find one abiogenesis observation. Oh, you say, but a comet hit earth! Yeah, and God snapped his fingers too. Both seem equally ridiculous, and based on what we know in science, both are. To argue that one is "more scientific" is saying that evolution is true because no other paradigm is available. As the quote in my comment stated: this "is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative." Birds have feathers and fly. Mammals don't have feathers and don't fly. Therefore, feathers are what make an animal able to fly. See the error in logic? This is what creationists and evolutionists are doing.
Eh? How do you go from "energy-cause mutations" to this?
Men with Down syndrome are essentially sterile and cannot reproduce. I know of no case where "extra information" is added and the species is able to reproduce.
So, tell me: how do you think life came to arise on this planet, and how do your ideas as to how life changes over time differ from those expressed in modern evolutionary theory?
This is where I get to be an asshole. You see, I don't have to believe your religion to refute it. Much like you don't have to be a Christian to refute creationism. You're just dying for a straw man, aren't you?
Here's my long, arduous refutation of creationism:
1) Creationism/ID requires a God. 2) God has not been observed and is not falsifiable. 3) Creationism/ID can't be science.
And here's the synopsis of evolution:
1) Evolution requires abiogenesis, no matter whether you think life came from comets, meteors, or proteins already on earth. 2) Abiogenesis has never been observed and, according to evolutionists, is not falsifiable. (Numerous scientists have tried to make life out of primordial ooze and they can not, which makes sense, because life doesn't come from nothing, but evolutionists don't give up hope, and thus will not allow abiogenesis to become falsifiable). 4) Evolution can't be science.
Does it bother you that it took less than 5 easy to understand points to refute BOTH of them?
Again, I thought I made this clear: I am not a creationist.
1. This argument centers on belief in life outside our solar system. Your response has given me no indication you think to contrary of *many* evolutionists. If the majority of evolutionists believe in life outside our solar system, is it really any surprise that Intelligent Design has worked its way into public debate?
2. The earth is a closed system. Let me repeat, the earth is a closed system. Our environment allows energy and not mass to pass into the system. Thus, the argument has to be that energy-cause mutations can increase information. In such mutations, the organism cannot reproduce or at least, cannot reproduce with those of the same species.
3. I find it very questionable that the two transitory species: Australopithecus boisei and Homo habilis, are both listed as possibly not even being their own species. From the others, it look like the argument comes down to about 8 transitory species, because no one really has a clue which is which. How's that for scientific reason? More on this point in 6, below.
4. "The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples."
What a patheticresponse. Please note on the last link the aging of rocks from the Apollo missions and this:
John Woodmorappe lists over 350 radiometric dates known to be in error. [Woodmorappe, 1979] He compared the expected age of the material dated with the age obtained by the reporting scientists. The expected age is based on the rock layer from which the sample came, which is based on the specific fossils found in them. He explained that although very common, most discrepant dates are simply excluded from the published reports or explained away.
I would hardly propose these examples are few. It appears they are found on a regular basis and just ignored or other samples are used to fit what evolutionists claim is "historical accurate".
5. It'd matter if I believed in creation. Since I don't, evolution has yet another large gap to explain. The method you are using is so damn near straw-man, I don't know what else to say other than: I do not believe in creation, either. I don't have to "believe" in either, yet the assumption in any debate like this, is that I need to. I don't, I honestly don't care about the issue except with the near religious-like devotion evolutionists have to their cause. I'm rejecting evolution, not accepting creation. "Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative."
6. On this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.h tml the potential falsification has a "criticism" of the falsification, probably suggested by "believers" rather than real scientists, to account for instances like mammals "evolving" softshells from reptiles, who had hard shells, which also evolved into birds with hard shells. Yet species of early reptiles had soft shells. So apparently the evolution of the shell is just arbitrary. And that's okay, because it doesn't really falsify evolution to have hard shell species evolve into soft shell and back.
Don't get me wrong, I like this page, but there are some huge problems with it. One of the claims of possible falsification is something we've found already: Rhipsalis is a cacti that is found outside of the Americas, with literally no explanation of how it got to Africa.
Again, missing fossils/records are the problem as argued by evolutionists. Falsification is the problem, as indicated by me. We're "just waiting for the complete fossil record". Now tell me that isn't
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I meant higher privileges, but lower implementation-level.
You are correct, I did mean lower-level.
I hate it when non-technical posts get rated as informative. First off, as others here have misstated, rootkits are essentially malicious drivers or kernel-level backdoors. They are *not* exploits, not bugs, and not driver cracks. Rootkits are essentially malware that runs at a higher level than most malware, with the intention of using API-hooking to misreport filesystem, process, and network status. The expertise required to make them is generally several orders higher than DDOS zombies or botnets. Though ironically, that same kind of malware is almost always installed and then subsequently hidden by the rootkit after one is installed.
I only felt it necessary to mention this because of those individuals who seem to think rootkits themselves are exploits to get escalated privileges. While some rootkits get installed via "shatter attacks" and other priviledge escalation exploits, they themselves aren't doing any exploiting.
I haven't the faintest clue why your comment is insightful.
Let me give you some examples of exploits (ie worms) that came out after patches: Blaster, Sasser, Nimda (MS patched this 330 days before the worm actually hit). Code Red is the only one that immediately comes to mind as a worm that hit before the patch, and even in that case, MS didn't know ahead of time that IIS was exploitable. It was 0-day.
In the case of the Plug & Play exploit, it became common knowledge *because* of the patch, which was reversed engineered to see what it fixed.
In the case of the other item, Microsoft acknowledged earlier that spyware companies were already exploiting the java proxy dll 0-day and thus created the patch.
In the first case the patch made the exploit common knowledge, in the second, the common knowledge came before the patch. So the answer to your question is: no.
Don't get me wrong, MS is getting better about patching, and they should be commended for their efforts in finding the java proxy IE exploit "in the wild" on their own without a security company having to release anything, but they don't need to be commended for releasing their regular monthly patches.
Patching for security issues is not something that a vendor is rewarded for. They are expected to do it.
While we're at it, please give me your definition of "religion" since it differs from the one in the dictionary.
Certainly!
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
Source: http://www.answers.com/religion
This is from the textbook definition, and found on answers.com. Atheism is not a deistic "religion", but it is a "religion" nonetheless. Some "denominations" even have members that meet on a regular basis as a "congregation".
"A name or designation, especially for a class or group."
Source: http://www.answers.com/denominations
"A body of assembled people or things; a gathering."
Source: http://www.answers.com/congregation
It's all in which definition you use. You have to keep in mind that the majority of atheists are atheists solely because they despise Christianity and love to meet in groups to talk about how to piss off Christians. There are some, however, like my roommate, that just hate religion and think it's worthless. They don't belong to any atheist forums or other ridiculous things, because they simply don't feel a need to spread their "gospel".
"Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true: My parents' rules were gospel."
Source: http://www.answers.com/gospel
Or, God does not exist.
Is there someone wrong with someone's beliefs?
Freedom of religion != Freedom from religion.
I won't even address the rest of what you stated, because it doesn't even come close to arguing the point I made. Flamingos and grebes, two species that don't share the same feathers, color, features like long neck and long legs, or anything, are more closely related genetically than the flamingo is to any other bird, oh, like a swan for instance.
Genetics itself disproves evolution. Refute the point.
Windows ME.
It really sucked having to wait till 2002 to upgrade from Windows 98 SE.
Enough said.
The only reason true monopolies exist is because the government steps in and regulates. Anyone with even a minute grasp of economics knows this.
Wrong.
Macroevolution is a term used by evolutionists to describe changes in a level at or above species.
Microevolution is essentially, Darwinism.
It is important to draw the distinction, not for the sake of evolution proponents, but evolution opponents. The reason being, few, if any opponents disagree with the darwinism natural selection origins of micro-evolution, but many disagree with macro-evolution.
If changes can occur within a species does not mean that species themselves change. The longer beaked flamingo might live longer, but they remain a flamingo. But it doesn't really matter because the flamingo evolved from a grebe.
With regards to that last link: WHAT THE FSCK ARE EVOLUTIONISTS THINKING? They are totally letting on that genetics is counter to the tenants of our evolution religion.
I'm sorry, I'll correct this in the future to read-
FACT: Abiogenesis has never been observed, and likely will never be obeserved.
Intelligent Design : Creationism ::
Natural Selection : Macro-Evolution
FACT: Creationism, especially as defined by Christians, is not falsifiable, and thus not a science.
FACT: Macro-evolution, especially as defined by atheists, is not falsifiable and thus not a science.
FACT: Abiogenesis has never happened and likely will never happen. This is a prerequisite of atheistic evolution. Either that, or "little green men". A supra-majority of polled atheists ironically believe in life outside of our solar system. Those hardcore atheists I have lots of respect for, because it must be difficult for them to tolerate the posers.
My apologies also go out to the evolutionists and darwinists who have had their science hijacked by these fanatical atheists.
Likewise, please explain the falsifiable predictions in abiogenesis, required to believe the atheistic interpretation of evolution. Thanks!
802.11s stands to be the next big thing, IMHO. A P2P wireless Internet brings so much more potential and allows "blanketing" of entire areas with much better throughput. I'd be interested in seeing IEEE settle on a standard for that, since there are like 5 competiting protocols for it right now.
Yes, while I would never probably mention FIJA in a real jury selection case, I do offer it as a means for others to get out of their jury duty. My belief is that the mere mention of FIJA is enough to get them interested in jury nullification and looking into the topic more. When people find out, they love to see that they actually have some power, and thus embrace the idea fully.
1984 has nothing on 2005... This might be known in history as the year liberty finally died.
In my town, we have free Wifi at Panera Bread and about 5 crappy little cafes.
How about instead of Wifi you just get up and go ask her out instead of watching her and pretending she's hotibunni27 on your IM?
You don't even have to provide evidence or even know what jury nullification is, that is correct. The four-letter acronym strikes fear into the hearts of all state-lawyer-kind.
Cue the Uranus jokes:
"Speaking of size, what about Uranus?"
"How can be possible comment on this new planet when we still have yet to send a probe to Uranus?"
Some wise astronomers have tried to change the speech from "your anus" to "urine us" or "you're in us". Unfortunately the planet seems to just be plain doomed as far as American English pronounciation goes.
Then you might get lawyers bickering about whether or not to let you on the patent panel based on your political views.
By the way, if you ever do want to get out of jury duty, just say this: "I'm a member of FIJA". You'll be out in no time, use those extra hours off work for the day to relax.
Here's why: jury nullification. You have the right to issue not guilty, not based solely on guilt or innocence, but also justness of a law. Laws against drugs are a good example of unjust laws, and if the case has anything to do with them and you get called up, saying you're a member of the fully-informed jury association will scare the pants off the district/state attorney. They might even strike to dismiss if you just spell, "F-I-J-A".
Good stuff to know.
I already patented that.
Just kidding.
Actually, part of the problem is that they can't do that. Skeptical lawyers will use legalspeak to describe a common everyday function, get it patented, and then go to the media with a story. It doesn't happen often, but every so often a lawyer or friend of one does it just to keep them on their toes.
No, it's mostly due to Nintendo not promoting 3rd party games on their platform. They don't promote 3rd party games, people don't buy them, and now they've lost some major support. Producers don't want to make games on systems if the playerbase isn't going to buy it. They also refuse to compete in the "hardware wars".
:)
Nintendo corporates have a huge misconception about what games are. They think video games are for kids. While that was true in the 80s, it is now the 00s and the same kids that played games in the 80s are now *twenty years older*. Most of us can buy a game system by planning a mere month ahead, and since many of us are also still single or only dating/engaged, we have disposable incomes reserved for gaming and more gaming.
But Mario isn't going to cut it anymore. I remember telling my neighbor the next thing you'd know they'd be making a Mario RPG, and sure enough they eventually did in 1996: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mario_games
I think it's kind of ridiculous to think that nostalgia is going to sell game systems. Nintendo *really* needs to wake up and either look at putting out superior game systems based on hardware, or moving to handhelds and expanding on their current titles.
Remember that in Japan, Nintendo is seen as the "handheld system corporation" that makes a console system primarily for Americans. After the Video game crash of '83 Atari basically died, and Nintendo was really the only company willing to test the US market again. Just because they were the first certainly doesn't mean that they were the best.
Also, Nintendo and Sega will continue to be around for forever. Remember that Nintendo was founded in 1889, and Sega in 1940.
Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?
What a horrible question. Reminds me of another one:
Is Duke Nukem Forever going to come out?
Everyone's got an opinion on it, and yet you expect reasonable responses are going to be the ones modded up? No, instead, you'll get about four "+5, Funny" comments and maybe one "+5, Informative" with some scattered "+5, Interesting"'s that are really about different topics, like how cool BSD's license is and some classroom examples where no one knew what open source software was anyway.
If you want legitimate discussion, ask the question in a context. Like this: "Can Commercial Software roadblocks still allow Open Source developers to provide sufficient products in the near and long term?"
Another good one: "Is Open Source development keying in on certain specific applications (Apache, PHP, MySQL), causing stagnation in development of other equally-important and every-growing more challenging OS softwares (Samba, Wine, PERL)?"
Knowing where to put the nut: $0
Knowledge is power. They teach this even in first grade. In my school, they taught it in kindergarten.
Your comments show why you are not a mechanic. Its actually a simple idea. If the mechanic "price gouges" you on your car, you simply do it back when he walks in to get his computer fixed.
I feel appalled at how much I get paid for doing things that seem simple, like changing a registry key, and etc. That kind of work *doesn't even involve changing a nut and washer*, but do I think I should be compensated for it? Certainly!
$500 is a bit excessive for knowledge and labor, but if a mechanic charged me a hundred for fixing one thing with a simple nut and explained what to watch out for in the future so it didn't happen again, I'd gladly hand it over to him and thank him for not dragging out the work over the next two days.
Can we just have a "War on Video Games" now? I've been waiting like 7 years for a politician to say it, and they haven't done it yet. Just imagine the fun I can have with that sound bite.
Please address the other points I made. I addressed each of yours to the full and I find it very disappointing that you would insult my time and effort by not addressing them.
Abiogenesis is a ridiculous notion and never been observed. Not only that, but many have tried duplicating it, purposefully, and failed. Because of this, Evolution is a belief system, similar to creationism. I don't even need Borel's law to state this, I merely need to point to the failure of evolutionists to find one abiogenesis observation. Oh, you say, but a comet hit earth! Yeah, and God snapped his fingers too. Both seem equally ridiculous, and based on what we know in science, both are. To argue that one is "more scientific" is saying that evolution is true because no other paradigm is available. As the quote in my comment stated: this "is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative." Birds have feathers and fly. Mammals don't have feathers and don't fly. Therefore, feathers are what make an animal able to fly. See the error in logic? This is what creationists and evolutionists are doing.
Eh? How do you go from "energy-cause mutations" to this?
Men with Down syndrome are essentially sterile and cannot reproduce. I know of no case where "extra information" is added and the species is able to reproduce.
So, tell me: how do you think life came to arise on this planet, and how do your ideas as to how life changes over time differ from those expressed in modern evolutionary theory?
This is where I get to be an asshole. You see, I don't have to believe your religion to refute it. Much like you don't have to be a Christian to refute creationism. You're just dying for a straw man, aren't you?
Here's my long, arduous refutation of creationism:
1) Creationism/ID requires a God.
2) God has not been observed and is not falsifiable.
3) Creationism/ID can't be science.
And here's the synopsis of evolution:
1) Evolution requires abiogenesis, no matter whether you think life came from comets, meteors, or proteins already on earth.
2) Abiogenesis has never been observed and, according to evolutionists, is not falsifiable. (Numerous scientists have tried to make life out of primordial ooze and they can not, which makes sense, because life doesn't come from nothing, but evolutionists don't give up hope, and thus will not allow abiogenesis to become falsifiable).
4) Evolution can't be science.
Does it bother you that it took less than 5 easy to understand points to refute BOTH of them?
1. This argument centers on belief in life outside our solar system. Your response has given me no indication you think to contrary of *many* evolutionists. If the majority of evolutionists believe in life outside our solar system, is it really any surprise that Intelligent Design has worked its way into public debate?
2. The earth is a closed system. Let me repeat, the earth is a closed system. Our environment allows energy and not mass to pass into the system. Thus, the argument has to be that energy-cause mutations can increase information. In such mutations, the organism cannot reproduce or at least, cannot reproduce with those of the same species.
3. I find it very questionable that the two transitory species: Australopithecus boisei and Homo habilis, are both listed as possibly not even being their own species. From the others, it look like the argument comes down to about 8 transitory species, because no one really has a clue which is which. How's that for scientific reason? More on this point in 6, below.
4. "The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples."
What a pathetic response. Please note on the last link the aging of rocks from the Apollo missions and this:
I would hardly propose these examples are few. It appears they are found on a regular basis and just ignored or other samples are used to fit what evolutionists claim is "historical accurate".
5. It'd matter if I believed in creation. Since I don't, evolution has yet another large gap to explain. The method you are using is so damn near straw-man, I don't know what else to say other than: I do not believe in creation, either. I don't have to "believe" in either, yet the assumption in any debate like this, is that I need to. I don't, I honestly don't care about the issue except with the near religious-like devotion evolutionists have to their cause. I'm rejecting evolution, not accepting creation.
"Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative."
6. On this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.h tml the potential falsification has a "criticism" of the falsification, probably suggested by "believers" rather than real scientists, to account for instances like mammals "evolving" softshells from reptiles, who had hard shells, which also evolved into birds with hard shells. Yet species of early reptiles had soft shells. So apparently the evolution of the shell is just arbitrary. And that's okay, because it doesn't really falsify evolution to have hard shell species evolve into soft shell and back.
Don't get me wrong, I like this page, but there are some huge problems with it. One of the claims of possible falsification is something we've found already: Rhipsalis is a cacti that is found outside of the Americas, with literally no explanation of how it got to Africa.
Again, missing fossils/records are the problem as argued by evolutionists. Falsification is the problem, as indicated by me. We're "just waiting for the complete fossil record". Now tell me that isn't