For up to 64 cores running in a portable computing environment, you need Vista Multicore Ultimate Laptop Edition (Vista MULE)
I think I ran that on my Atari 800. Or was it the Commodore 64? I distinctly remember, that MULE didn't like to work. It kept running away if I didn't keep an eye on it!
You do know that its easier to do FF/IE first and then fix the Safari/Opera bugs?
This is patently untrue. It's much easier to do FireFox, Safari, and Opera all at once, then support IE. The former three support web standards, while IE *doesn't*.
Oh, and Google almost never supports Opera. (Their new Wii RSS reader being the exception that proves the rule.) Which is something that's becoming a bit of an annoyance.
In any case, this ends up having nothing to do with web standards as the API relies on a Google plugin.
"This specification introduces two related mechanisms, similar to HTTP session cookies [RFC2965], for storing structured data on the client side.
The first is designed for scenarios where the user is carrying out a single transaction, but could be carrying out multiple transactions in different windows at the same time.
The second storage mechanism is designed for storage that spans multiple windows, and lasts beyond the current session. In particular, Web applications may wish to store megabytes of user data, such as entire user-authored documents or a user's mailbox, on the clientside for performance reasons."
Dojo uses whatever storage service is available. That includes WHATWG Storage, Flash storage, and IE controls.
The biggest difference with Google Gears is that the storage mechanism can be configured to automatically sync with the parent server. It also allows you to run your code asynchronously as well as provides direct access to an SQLLite database. However, these features are secondary to the primary purpose of providing auto-synced data storage.
i simply do not understand this statement? is it about reaching the most users or about you having a bug up your ass?
It's about coding to the standards. Firefox, Safari, and Opera are all (more or less) standards compliant. It's quite easy to write code for all three of them. IE is NOT standards compliant, and has become a cancer upon the web. If enough sites start pushing neat features that IE doesn't support, users will begin upgrading to a better browser. (One that looks better, too!) That will either force Microsoft to fix their browser or make IE irrelevant.
Of course, that's just a pipe dream for now. But with neat stuff like Canvas, Storage, Event-Source, Video, and Audio showing up in the latest web browsers, it's tempting to pull the plug on IE for even a small portion of a site. Especailly sites that provide services to popular embedded devices like cellphones or the Wii.
I'm inclined to believe that CNet made the mistake. Google claims that it works on Firefox for OS X. My guess is that CNet either assumed that OS X support == Safari support or they decided to preemptively report the upcoming Safari support.
It seems that Google Gears can be used for more than offline applications.
Yes, but you have to get the user to install the plugin and accept the security warnings. Only *then* will it be available to online apps.
The market has been avoiding plugins for a long time due to the difficulty of getting end users to install the plugin software. Even with the (relative) simplicity of Microsoft ActiveX install, it often turns off the users. As a result, there are only two plugins you can (mostly) count on: Flash and Java. And that's only because they're usually installed by default.
Anyone using this for online content is taking a pretty large risk unless they control the computers that run it. e.g. It might make sense in corporate settings were updates are pushed by a central server. But that's a much smaller portion of the market than, say, Google Docs.
Of course, I imagine that Google will try to make some of these issues go away by shipping the software as part of their Google Desktop and GTalk downloads. Combined with potential downloads for the desktop application versions of their webapps, Google may get a pretty good market penetration. In which case their solution will be awesome. (Yay!) Though still only a psuedo-standard. (Boo!):-)
* IE7 has reversed that trend with plugin pages being blocked by default. Try their demos in IE7, and you'll find it to be less userfriendly than it should be.
So it looks like this is a browser plugin. Meaning that you'd need to install it with your web application. The API is reminiscent of the WHATWG Storage Specification, but appears to be a bit more sophisticated in its reach. If I'm reading this right, the biggest difference is auto-syncing of the data with a server (when you're online) rather than having to write your own synching software.
Thus this appears to be a competitor to Adobe Apollo, but without Google defining their own container format.
Interesting. I'm not quite sure what to make of it as it's not anything that hasn't been contemplated before. Personally, I'm hesitent to adopt anything that can't be used on a live webpage as well as downloadable "webapps". However, that may not stop others who have good ideas on how this might be used.
Boo! Am I the only one who thinks the Big 4 browsers should be supported, and not just FireFox/IE? In fact, I'd rather put a sign up on my site that says, "IE Users not welcome, upgrade to a REAL browser" than not support the millions of mobile and home gaming machines out there. Of course, I suppose that's just me.
I'm looking into how this works right now. I have my suspicions, but we'll see.
You call my post an ad-hominem attack, yet it is the opinion I've developed in speaking with you. And here is pretty much the entire thread summed up:
You said, "but I didn't say that the Earth was only 6,000 years old", and I pointed out that the odds of that being the case are basically negligible, but you phrased things to imply that that was a reasonable possibility.
"the theologian needs to take another pass at his texts because his domain is not that of science."
"If you were listening to what I said, then you'd know that theology has to accept that which is proven. Geologists don't know anywhere near everything about geology, but they do know quite a bit."
"I just made a point of the fact that the universe (and probably the Earth) is most likely older than 6,000 years. I linked to that site NOT to make the point that it is in fact 6,000 years old."
"when I say, "most likely", I mean that while the universe's age is up for debate, it would take a radical shift in current knowledge to show the universe as 6,000 years old"
"Don't be thick. I made the explicit point that theology must reevaluate itself in the face of knowledge about God's creation."
"Let me repeat myself. The universe is probably older than 6,000 years. Not by another 10,000 or 20,000 years, but by several billion years. Now if you want to keep beating your head against this same wall, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to pay any attention."
Long story short, I agree that the universe is ancient and disagree with the 6,000 year figure. You continue to argue with the 6,000 year figure. I think we're done here. Good day.
You can still find the more story-driven stuff. Like everything else, fanfiction is 95% crapola. The good stuff is out there, and surprisingly not that hard to find, as long as you put a little effort into it.
If that 95% of crapola is slash fiction, I'd rather not wade through it if it's all the same to you. One of the advantages of the original alt.startrek.creative archive was that they didn't bother archiving any of the slash and adult-themed garbage.
"[Geologists are] reasonably certain that 6,000 years is a bit shy [of the age of the Earth]".
So you take it out of context, then use brackets to add words that I didn't say? Nice work. You've just shoved words into my mouth. Here is what I actually said:
"The truth of the matter is that the scientist is not yet sure of the age (though he's reasonably certain that 6,000 years is a bit shy) and the theologian needs to take another pass at his texts because his domain is not that of science.... Ask any scientist what the age of the universe is, and you'll get an answer in the range of between 10-20 billion years. The exact answer will tend to change with time as science learns new things about the universe. Sometimes the estimate decreases, sometimes it increases. There are quite a few factors that keep messing with the estimates. So when I say, "most likely", I mean that while the universe's age is up for debate, it would take a radical shift in current knowledge to show the universe as 6,000 years old."
Sure, the 'roots' of the tree of life are fuzzy
The whole kitten caboodle is fuzzy. It isn't just controversial, it's outmoded. The structure cannot support modern evolutionary science any longer. FTFA:
In their paper, Doolittle and Bapteste highlight research that shows other causes of genetic modification, suggesting that evolutionary history is more complex than described by the TOL. For example, recombination, gene loss, duplication, and gene creation are a few of the processes whereby genes can be transferred within and between species, causing variation that's not due to vertical transfer. These transfer methods give results that don't fit on the TOL, including species that cannot be traced to a common ancestor.
It's that simple. The TOL continues to be a nice model of evolutionary theory, but making a model of a theory does not prove a theory.
Oh, and comparing human and cheetah genetic diversity points out why the Flood didn't "wipe out most of humanity" in anything like the way the Bible portrays. There's a huge difference between ~100 reproducing individuals for the cheetah and the 5,000 minimum specified in the article. How many of those "reproducing females" were on the Ark?
So your point is that now you're changing your argument? "If humans went through a similar 'pinch point' anywhere in the last 100,000 years, how come transplant rejection is such a problem?" Excellent question. Why don't you feel free to explain the answer?:-/
(That, BTW, is a retorical question. I already know the answer. Here's a hint: It has less to do with a difference in the number breeding pairs there were and everything to do with their adapability to the environment.)
Gee, as long as we're doing direct quotes, how about one of mine: There are theologies that try to reconcile Genesis with the actual age of the Earth, and there are theologies that just say "God made it look older to test us", and those aren't ruled out (since, by definition, they make no testable predictions contrary to what science actually shows).
"Don't be thick. I made the explicit point that theology must reevaluate itself in the face of knowledge about God's creation."
Let me repeat myself. The universe is probably older than 6,000 years. Not by another 10,000 or 20,000 years, but by several billion years. Now if you want to keep beating your head against this same wall, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to pay any attention.
Another favorite of mine was the one where Picard and Crusher's daughter (ok, that one was a bit of a stretch) commanded a later Enterprise. And Moriarty became the computer! (It was written before they resolved the Moriarty storyline on the show.:))
Actually, I used to read the Usenet archives of the Star Trek fanfic. (This was well over a decade ago.) When I ran out of fiction to read, I emailed the maintainer to find out why the FTP site wasn't being updated. He pointed me to the new archive on another site. What I found was that it was mostly overrun with NC17 "fiction", so I just stopped reading altogether.
...better than they write their complaints. I can barely make heads or tails of the linked article. The "Read More" link isn't much better. From what I can tell, Fanlib is big and corporate, which scares away people who want to write slash fiction. Oooookaaay.
You might want to hip yourself to isochron dating before you suggest that there's any rationally perceptible chance that the age is off by six orders of magnitude.
And yet again, you force words in my mouth that were not spoken. WHEN did I suggest that there is a serious chance that the age is off by six orders of magnitude? Quote me. Specifically, where did I say it?
It seems to me that you are simply hearing what you want to hear. And THAT is how you are forcing a confrontation when none exists.
Ah, and here's the real meat - you don't want that to be true. Your use of the term 'macroevolution' is a revealing code word.
Oooo. A "codeword". Explains everything, doesn't it? (Excuse me while I roll my eyes.)
But as to evolution after the origin of life - Why is it that the genomes of all life, when compared, form a nested tree where branches and mutations can be traced in detail and with quite rare ambiguity, and by remarkable coincidence that tree matches up essentially perfectly with the independently generated (indeed, generated before genetics) "tree of life" based on physical classification?
And here we see that you have no idea what you're really talking about, but you're going to defend it to the end, anyway. From the tree of life website:
The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section.
Darwin's "Tree of life" is not useful to the modern evolutionary scientist, as a variety of new research into the factors that change life (such as recombination, gene loss, duplication, and gene creation are a few of the processes whereby genes can be transferred within and between species) make the concept of the Tree of Life outmoded. More info: http://www.physorg.com/news92912140.html
And even that's silly. Look at cheetahs. They apparently went through a genetic 'pinch point' about 10,000 years ago. Their genetic diversity is so low that they can accept skin grafts from each other without rejection - only one other species is known to be able to do that. If humans went through a similar 'pinch point' anywhere in the last 100,000 years, how come transplant rejection is such a problem?
And again, you demonstrate that you know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to actually know what the hell you're talking about. Here:
Humans have remarkably little genetic diversity, especially in comparison to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Indeed, there is substantially more genetic difference among individuals within chimpanzee troops in West Africa than among all living humans on earth. As shown in Figure 1, this is due to a series of bottlenecks in human evolutionary history. Geneticists studying many different parts of the human genome have concluded that the past effective population size (that is, the number of reproducing females) averaged only 10,000 individuals over the last one million years, and was as low as 5,000 around 70,000 years ago. Compare this to the approximately one billion reproducing females alive today, and it becomes clear just how narrow these bottlenecks were.
Hey, I'm not the one forcing the confrontation.
If you'll pardon my crassness, bullshit. You're intentionally forcing an argument because you belive you already understand both sides of the argument, and y
That's exactly where it's destined to go. The only problem is getting it done. I not only have to write it (which as you know, I never do by halves), but I have various charts and technology demonstrations to complete. It's a lot of work, but I think the result will be worth it.:)
Using weasel words like "most likely" when you're referring to a six-orders-of-magnitude difference in 'opinion' is, well, weaseling. And I'm calling you on it.
Oh, brother. Ask any scientist what the age of the universe is, and you'll get an answer in the range of between 10-20 billion years. The exact answer will tend to change with time as science learns new things about the universe. Sometimes the estimate decreases, sometimes it increases. There are quite a few factors that keep messing with the estimates. So when I say, "most likely", I mean that while the universe's age is up for debate, it would take a radical shift in current knowledge to show the universe as 6,000 years old.
Feel happy, warm, and fuzzy yet?
But the theologies that claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that the scientific evidence supports this - those are just flat wrong.
1. Don't be thick. I made the explicit point that theology must reevaluate itself in the face of knowledge about God's creation. The 6,000 year figure is a guesstimation based upon the genealogy between Adam and Jesus, not an exact figure given by the Bible on when it happened. The parts before that have always been open to some interpretation. Specifically, Genesis 1:2 has always given scholars trouble because it says "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters," suggesting that the Earth existed prior to its creation. It can also be interpreted as, "the earth became formless and empty".
2. I lack the ability to read Hebrew, so I've never been able to fully test a theological theory of mine. And that is that the "days" spoken of by Moses are length of his vision, not the physical period of creation. The Catholic church already accepts something to that affect, including the whole ball of wax with evolution. As a critical thinker, I cannot accept evolution as fact as of yet. At least not the theory in its current form. There simply is too much lacking in the models for abiogenesis and macroevolution. Again, if the universe is run by an extra-universal being, then the laws of nature are his laws of nature. So I don't see any reason to question the idea that creation might have been a seemingly natural event.
3. Your link raises a lot of questions that have not all been successfully answered. However, until the event can be scientifically proven to have happened, trying to disprove the details is pointless. Certain aspects can be argued (e.g. the construction according to the Bible), but even there we are missing the specific materials and techniques possibly used in construction. Furthermore, the extent of the flood is not known. According to the Bible, the Flood was sufficient to wipe out mankind of the day. But was it truly a global flood, or simply one of the prehistoric deluge disasters?
The Bible discusses that the Nephilim existed both before and after the flood. And in fact, the Biblical reason for the flood was to wipe out the Nephilim cross-breeds. These cross-breeds were the giants who were later seen in the land of Israel. (The most famous being Goliath.) There has been some suggestion that contemporary but separate homo-species may have interbred with humans, creating the legend of the Nephilim. However, there is still not enough known about these periods of history to make a clear determination. Books such as the Torah have been so mystified over the years that the historical records they may contain are often difficult to interpret according to their original intent. What might have made perfect sense in Moses' time, now seems like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
In any case, are you quite done forcing a confrontation? Unless you'd care to further prove my point for me?
I was pointing out, rather pointedly, that geologists are a lot more than "reasonably certain" that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.
See, it makes no sense to me why you'd do that considering that I just made a point of the fact that the universe (and probably the Earth) is most likely older than 6,000 years. I linked to that site NOT to make the point that it is in fact 6,000 years old, but to demonstrate a non-christian weighing in on the division between theology and science.
His argument was basically that it is an either/or situation ("or maybe"). If one is true, than how can the other be?
Yet that was not my argument at all. My argument is that there is a natural law for everything that happens in the universe. However, if they are the laws of an extra-universal being, then the universe is balanced according to his will. The situation is potentially therefore an AND, not an OR.
Science has its answer (or answers given that it's just as likely to change as science does), but that doesn't prevent theologians and philosophers from deciding if such aspects of nature represent God's signature of his handiwork or simply a grand coincidence.
2. What the heck is "flood geology?" If you were listening to what I said, then you'd know that theology has to accept that which is proven. Geologists don't know anywhere near everything about geology, but they do know quite a bit. Theologists have to accept that the known geology of the Earth must (assuming the event happened) be the resulting geology of the event. Which means that any scientific (or faux scientific) theories put forward based on how the flood affected geology must accomidate the already known geology as well as make testable predictions.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I ran that on my Atari 800. Or was it the Commodore 64? I distinctly remember, that MULE didn't like to work. It kept running away if I didn't keep an eye on it!
(Cue theme music. *wacka* *wacka*, *wacka* *wacka* Dun-da-da-dun...)
This is patently untrue. It's much easier to do FireFox, Safari, and Opera all at once, then support IE. The former three support web standards, while IE *doesn't*.
Oh, and Google almost never supports Opera. (Their new Wii RSS reader being the exception that proves the rule.) Which is something that's becoming a bit of an annoyance.
In any case, this ends up having nothing to do with web standards as the API relies on a Google plugin.
You sure about that? It looks to me like it's in the HTML5 working draft to me:
? rev=1.29#storage
;-)
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/spec/Overview.html
"This specification introduces two related mechanisms, similar to HTTP session cookies [RFC2965], for storing structured data on the client side.
The first is designed for scenarios where the user is carrying out a single transaction, but could be carrying out multiple transactions in different windows at the same time.
The second storage mechanism is designed for storage that spans multiple windows, and lasts beyond the current session. In particular, Web applications may wish to store megabytes of user data, such as entire user-authored documents or a user's mailbox, on the clientside for performance reasons."
Dojo uses whatever storage service is available. That includes WHATWG Storage, Flash storage, and IE controls.
The biggest difference with Google Gears is that the storage mechanism can be configured to automatically sync with the parent server. It also allows you to run your code asynchronously as well as provides direct access to an SQLLite database. However, these features are secondary to the primary purpose of providing auto-synced data storage.
It's about coding to the standards. Firefox, Safari, and Opera are all (more or less) standards compliant. It's quite easy to write code for all three of them. IE is NOT standards compliant, and has become a cancer upon the web. If enough sites start pushing neat features that IE doesn't support, users will begin upgrading to a better browser. (One that looks better, too!) That will either force Microsoft to fix their browser or make IE irrelevant.
Of course, that's just a pipe dream for now. But with neat stuff like Canvas, Storage, Event-Source, Video, and Audio showing up in the latest web browsers, it's tempting to pull the plug on IE for even a small portion of a site. Especailly sites that provide services to popular embedded devices like cellphones or the Wii.
That's generally how the Big 4 browsers get supported.
It's amazingly easy to make an app work across FireFox, Safari, and Opera, but if you have to target IE it makes life a living hell.
I'm inclined to believe that CNet made the mistake. Google claims that it works on Firefox for OS X. My guess is that CNet either assumed that OS X support == Safari support or they decided to preemptively report the upcoming Safari support.
Yes, but you have to get the user to install the plugin and accept the security warnings. Only *then* will it be available to online apps.
The market has been avoiding plugins for a long time due to the difficulty of getting end users to install the plugin software. Even with the (relative) simplicity of Microsoft ActiveX install, it often turns off the users. As a result, there are only two plugins you can (mostly) count on: Flash and Java. And that's only because they're usually installed by default.
Anyone using this for online content is taking a pretty large risk unless they control the computers that run it. e.g. It might make sense in corporate settings were updates are pushed by a central server. But that's a much smaller portion of the market than, say, Google Docs.
Of course, I imagine that Google will try to make some of these issues go away by shipping the software as part of their Google Desktop and GTalk downloads. Combined with potential downloads for the desktop application versions of their webapps, Google may get a pretty good market penetration. In which case their solution will be awesome. (Yay!) Though still only a psuedo-standard. (Boo!)
* IE7 has reversed that trend with plugin pages being blocked by default. Try their demos in IE7, and you'll find it to be less userfriendly than it should be.
There is. It's on the first page, second paragraph. Click on the text that says "Google Gears". It will take you here:
http://gears.google.com/
Do you have a link for that? The FAQ I linked to says that Safari will be coming "in a future release" and says nothing about Opera.
So it looks like this is a browser plugin. Meaning that you'd need to install it with your web application. The API is reminiscent of the WHATWG Storage Specification, but appears to be a bit more sophisticated in its reach. If I'm reading this right, the biggest difference is auto-syncing of the data with a server (when you're online) rather than having to write your own synching software.
Thus this appears to be a competitor to Adobe Apollo, but without Google defining their own container format.
Interesting. I'm not quite sure what to make of it as it's not anything that hasn't been contemplated before. Personally, I'm hesitent to adopt anything that can't be used on a live webpage as well as downloadable "webapps". However, that may not stop others who have good ideas on how this might be used.
Boo! Am I the only one who thinks the Big 4 browsers should be supported, and not just FireFox/IE? In fact, I'd rather put a sign up on my site that says, "IE Users not welcome, upgrade to a REAL browser" than not support the millions of mobile and home gaming machines out there. Of course, I suppose that's just me.
I'm looking into how this works right now. I have my suspicions, but we'll see.
"the theologian needs to take another pass at his texts because his domain is not that of science."
"If you were listening to what I said, then you'd know that theology has to accept that which is proven. Geologists don't know anywhere near everything about geology, but they do know quite a bit."
"I just made a point of the fact that the universe (and probably the Earth) is most likely older than 6,000 years. I linked to that site NOT to make the point that it is in fact 6,000 years old."
"when I say, "most likely", I mean that while the universe's age is up for debate, it would take a radical shift in current knowledge to show the universe as 6,000 years old"
"Don't be thick. I made the explicit point that theology must reevaluate itself in the face of knowledge about God's creation."
"Let me repeat myself. The universe is probably older than 6,000 years. Not by another 10,000 or 20,000 years, but by several billion years. Now if you want to keep beating your head against this same wall, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to pay any attention."
Long story short, I agree that the universe is ancient and disagree with the 6,000 year figure. You continue to argue with the 6,000 year figure. I think we're done here. Good day.
If that 95% of crapola is slash fiction, I'd rather not wade through it if it's all the same to you. One of the advantages of the original alt.startrek.creative archive was that they didn't bother archiving any of the slash and adult-themed garbage.
So you take it out of context, then use brackets to add words that I didn't say? Nice work. You've just shoved words into my mouth. Here is what I actually said:
"The truth of the matter is that the scientist is not yet sure of the age (though he's reasonably certain that 6,000 years is a bit shy) and the theologian needs to take another pass at his texts because his domain is not that of science
The whole kitten caboodle is fuzzy. It isn't just controversial, it's outmoded. The structure cannot support modern evolutionary science any longer. FTFA:It's that simple. The TOL continues to be a nice model of evolutionary theory, but making a model of a theory does not prove a theory.
So your point is that now you're changing your argument? "If humans went through a similar 'pinch point' anywhere in the last 100,000 years, how come transplant rejection is such a problem?" Excellent question. Why don't you feel free to explain the answer?
(That, BTW, is a retorical question. I already know the answer. Here's a hint: It has less to do with a difference in the number breeding pairs there were and everything to do with their adapability to the environment.)
"Don't be thick. I made the explicit point that theology must reevaluate itself in the face of knowledge about God's creation."
Let me repeat myself. The universe is probably older than 6,000 years. Not by another 10,000 or 20,000 years, but by several billion years. Now if you want to keep beating your head against this same wall, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to pay any attention.
U.S.S. Cavalier!
:P
.Z file) here: http://www.theworld.com/obi/Star.Trek.Stories/
:))
I still have it printed out somewhere. Nebula of the Living Dead (name?) was really good too!
You can still find Cavalier (packed in an ancient
Another favorite of mine was the one where Picard and Crusher's daughter (ok, that one was a bit of a stretch) commanded a later Enterprise. And Moriarty became the computer! (It was written before they resolved the Moriarty storyline on the show.
Actually, I used to read the Usenet archives of the Star Trek fanfic. (This was well over a decade ago.) When I ran out of fiction to read, I emailed the maintainer to find out why the FTP site wasn't being updated. He pointed me to the new archive on another site. What I found was that it was mostly overrun with NC17 "fiction", so I just stopped reading altogether.
...better than they write their complaints. I can barely make heads or tails of the linked article. The "Read More" link isn't much better. From what I can tell, Fanlib is big and corporate, which scares away people who want to write slash fiction. Oooookaaay.
And yet again, you force words in my mouth that were not spoken. WHEN did I suggest that there is a serious chance that the age is off by six orders of magnitude? Quote me. Specifically, where did I say it?
It seems to me that you are simply hearing what you want to hear. And THAT is how you are forcing a confrontation when none exists.
Oooo. A "codeword". Explains everything, doesn't it? (Excuse me while I roll my eyes.)
And here we see that you have no idea what you're really talking about, but you're going to defend it to the end, anyway. From the tree of life website:
Darwin's "Tree of life" is not useful to the modern evolutionary scientist, as a variety of new research into the factors that change life (such as recombination, gene loss, duplication, and gene creation are a few of the processes whereby genes can be transferred within and between species) make the concept of the Tree of Life outmoded. More info: http://www.physorg.com/news92912140.html
And again, you demonstrate that you know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to actually know what the hell you're talking about. Here:
If you'll pardon my crassness, bullshit. You're intentionally forcing an argument because you belive you already understand both sides of the argument, and y
That's exactly where it's destined to go. The only problem is getting it done. I not only have to write it (which as you know, I never do by halves), but I have various charts and technology demonstrations to complete. It's a lot of work, but I think the result will be worth it. :)
Oh, brother. Ask any scientist what the age of the universe is, and you'll get an answer in the range of between 10-20 billion years. The exact answer will tend to change with time as science learns new things about the universe. Sometimes the estimate decreases, sometimes it increases. There are quite a few factors that keep messing with the estimates. So when I say, "most likely", I mean that while the universe's age is up for debate, it would take a radical shift in current knowledge to show the universe as 6,000 years old.
Feel happy, warm, and fuzzy yet?
1. Don't be thick. I made the explicit point that theology must reevaluate itself in the face of knowledge about God's creation. The 6,000 year figure is a guesstimation based upon the genealogy between Adam and Jesus, not an exact figure given by the Bible on when it happened. The parts before that have always been open to some interpretation. Specifically, Genesis 1:2 has always given scholars trouble because it says "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters," suggesting that the Earth existed prior to its creation. It can also be interpreted as, "the earth became formless and empty".
2. I lack the ability to read Hebrew, so I've never been able to fully test a theological theory of mine. And that is that the "days" spoken of by Moses are length of his vision, not the physical period of creation. The Catholic church already accepts something to that affect, including the whole ball of wax with evolution. As a critical thinker, I cannot accept evolution as fact as of yet. At least not the theory in its current form. There simply is too much lacking in the models for abiogenesis and macroevolution. Again, if the universe is run by an extra-universal being, then the laws of nature are his laws of nature. So I don't see any reason to question the idea that creation might have been a seemingly natural event.
3. Your link raises a lot of questions that have not all been successfully answered. However, until the event can be scientifically proven to have happened, trying to disprove the details is pointless. Certain aspects can be argued (e.g. the construction according to the Bible), but even there we are missing the specific materials and techniques possibly used in construction. Furthermore, the extent of the flood is not known. According to the Bible, the Flood was sufficient to wipe out mankind of the day. But was it truly a global flood, or simply one of the prehistoric deluge disasters?
The Bible discusses that the Nephilim existed both before and after the flood. And in fact, the Biblical reason for the flood was to wipe out the Nephilim cross-breeds. These cross-breeds were the giants who were later seen in the land of Israel. (The most famous being Goliath.) There has been some suggestion that contemporary but separate homo-species may have interbred with humans, creating the legend of the Nephilim. However, there is still not enough known about these periods of history to make a clear determination. Books such as the Torah have been so mystified over the years that the historical records they may contain are often difficult to interpret according to their original intent. What might have made perfect sense in Moses' time, now seems like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
In any case, are you quite done forcing a confrontation? Unless you'd care to further prove my point for me?
Works for me. :)
:(
BTW, I've got your Silverlight replacement problem all worked out. Now if only I could find time to write the article on it.
See, it makes no sense to me why you'd do that considering that I just made a point of the fact that the universe (and probably the Earth) is most likely older than 6,000 years. I linked to that site NOT to make the point that it is in fact 6,000 years old, but to demonstrate a non-christian weighing in on the division between theology and science.
His argument was basically that it is an either/or situation ("or maybe"). If one is true, than how can the other be?
Yet that was not my argument at all. My argument is that there is a natural law for everything that happens in the universe. However, if they are the laws of an extra-universal being, then the universe is balanced according to his will. The situation is potentially therefore an AND, not an OR.
Science has its answer (or answers given that it's just as likely to change as science does), but that doesn't prevent theologians and philosophers from deciding if such aspects of nature represent God's signature of his handiwork or simply a grand coincidence.
1. Did you even read the link I gave you?
2. What the heck is "flood geology?" If you were listening to what I said, then you'd know that theology has to accept that which is proven. Geologists don't know anywhere near everything about geology, but they do know quite a bit. Theologists have to accept that the known geology of the Earth must (assuming the event happened) be the resulting geology of the event. Which means that any scientific (or faux scientific) theories put forward based on how the flood affected geology must accomidate the already known geology as well as make testable predictions.