I don't think you are understanding the character of this issue. Yes, foreign spies operating in the US need to be worried, and yes we should and do take steps to deal with such activities. I expect other countries to do the same for spies located in their borders... But at issue here is intelligence gathered from domestic sources about foreign communications. Basically the law gives the CIA the right to monitor communications that cross our borders, despite the fact that at least one side of the conversation is domestic and domestic monitoring usually requires a warrant.
If foreign countries "freak out" over such monitoring, so be it, but they are free to do the same for communications that cross their border. Many other countries do exactly the same thing, as well as filter the allowed communications where the US doesn't filter.
The US is not being inconsistent in how it treats the rest of the world here. In fact, if anything we are much less tolerant to monitoring domestically than almost all of the rest of the world which makes us a much easier target for spying. Seems our constitution does a good job of protecting us from such abuses, or at least it has so far.
So do you suggest that we apply the same rules of evidence used in our courts to inelegance gathering overseas? So shall we just go to the international courts to get warrants? I don't think that's a workable solution.
What this article leaves out and the reader should know, is that it is illegal for the federal government to monitor domestic communications without a warrant. There is no such protection afforded non-citizens outside of the USA. At issue is when the CIA (or other foreign intelligence gathering organization of the Federal Government) is monitoring a foreign national outside of the USA who may be talking to someone inside the states. The "loophole" they are talking about basically is that as long as the collection target is not a domestic US citizen, any information gathered is legal to keep, even if it involves a domestic party. It must also be understood that such evidence would NOT be admissible in court for a criminal trial having not been obtained though a warrant. I wonder if it could legally be used as probable cause to obtain the warrant though.
I personally don't see the huge issue with this, unless we are seeing a rash of prosecutions based on such evidence. I have heard of no such cases. Further, unless the Fed is really not trying to filter the data at all, it is unlikely that they have much data that they have to purge. After all, this IS an investigative effort that targets non-US-citizens so it makes sense their filtering is pretty good, or this effort would be useless.
I'll guess that the guys with the tinfoil hats who are looking for the black helicopters won't like this, but I'd be much more worried about Google or Facebook collection efforts than this.
I'm thinking that you need to keep the "safe search" option turned on if you type that stuff into Google and expect to actually find a recipe for brownies anywhere near the top of the list.
This is why I stay logged out of my Google account whenever possible and only access Facebook when I absolutely have to. Privacy is dead. Google talks a good talk with "Don't be evil", but actions speak louder than words. And Facebook might be the biggest enemy of privacy on the web right now.
Best you be deleting your cookies too or all is for naught... In fact, I'd be deleting all cookies and history every time I started a browser if I was you. Further, I'd also try and get a new IP address from your ISP on a regular basis. Even then, good luck with not being tracked.
Oh heck, Just stay off the web, take the battery out of your cell phone and never go outside....
Moving to the cloud is easier, which is why we keep considering it. It is easier to off load the work onto some cloud operator who is supposed to do it better and possibly cheaper, or at least it LOOKS easier. No more dealing with backup tapes, No more dealing with software licenses and the like, just pay your vendor of choice copy all your data onto the cloud and start tossing hardware and the people that managed it out the door.
Problem here is that doing this job right, on a budget, and on time is FAR from easy. Plus, it is going to be very difficult to verify that your vendor is actually doing the job correctly, considering that the hardware isn't accessible, being located in some server room some distance away. Who knows if they actually do backups of anything, much less actually do off site storage of recovery media. My guess is that as competition in this area heats up, prices will fall with quality falling too. Costs will be trimmed by eliminating skilled labor and without skilled labor the whole house of cards will fall.
Seems to me that the cloud may be a short term gain for most, but in the long run, dumping your infrastructure and the people that go with it is going to bite you eventually, unless the business is very small.
Finally, the biggest messes I've had to clean up had very little to do with a hardware failure or some loss of data. The worst messes I've seen where caused by some administrative error.... Replacing the wrong disk in the RAID, causing the total data loss or not thinking though a command before hitting enter. I don't see how being on a cloud will fix this kind of thing.
Most applications that use MySQL that I've seen decided to use imbeded hard coded usernames and passwords (usually for the SA user) so there was no security anyway. The few solutions I've seen that actually used unique usernames and passwords and not SA, usually used an external authentication method so the database didn't have any passwords to expose.
Finding out about this now doesn't scare me all that much. If you had used a good security design and practice, there should be limited exposure of usernames and passwords, but if your design and practice sucks, expect to get hacked and not be able to do anything about it.
But it scares the shit out of me to think that Iran is running WINDOWS on sensitive installations, for Uranium processing (even for reactors it is not exactly *safe* material) or other important security/safety functions. If this stupidity exists elsewhere in the world, we live in a VERY SCARY world (like most of the people in the world, probably, I don't live that many miles from a nuclear plant).
Iran is free to use Windows for what ever they choose and it's fine by me. Just don't run Windows to control the nuke plant in my backyard.
The really scary thing is that folks actually believe that MAD (a Cold War stance) is a good strategy for dealing with Iran... The US generally already has the ability to turn the bulk of Iran in to glass and it doesn't seem to be bothering them. Now you are suggesting that we simply allow them to develop the ability to do the same to the US? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me, given their rhetoric (not to mention their actual activity) in the region and the US's obvious disinterest in engaging IRAN beyond just disrupting their nuclear progress.
But who are we kidding... Iran is destine to be as relevant as North Korea if the sanctions now in place are continued for a few years. (A big IF). Yea, it would be a huge mess if a war started, but could the outcome be in question? The longer we can keep sanctions working, the less of a mess it becomes, so while I'm not a MAD proponent, I am a "wait and see" advocate, assuming Iran doesn't do something stupid, like shooting at some aircraft carrier going though the straights or trying to shutdown oil shipping.
I think the Iranians know that a full out war with the US would not end well for them, so they have so far only threatened to escalate the conflict. The wild card here is Israel. If Israel decides that the risk of a nuclear blast over Tel Aviv is getting to great for them, you can bet that Iran will soon loose the ability by direct strikes if necessary. The risk being that the whole middle east would come apart at the seams and the US would get drawn into a wider conflict. This is my greatest worry, not that they choose to run Windows based computers
Who decides some Species is invasive and what is the criteria for making this claim?
There are invasive species, to be sure, but what exactly makes something invasive? And how is this different from evolution? A more adapted species finds its way into an ecosystem where it can thrive due to lack of predators or by being better adapted to the conditions just seems to be the natural way of things... Unless, gasp, we don't really believe that evolution is a good thing...
Pardon to all the Asian Carp, Zebra Mussels and Kudzu individuals out there.
For the same reason they have such certainty about the things they think they "know". The whole global warming debate is a fascinating study of human psychology.
It is very interesting to be sure. On slashdot folks get moded down for even a sideways critique of Global Warming. What this world is coming too.
What we really have is NOT a scientific debate about facts, but a debate over differing world views. You want proof by facts, but you have already dismissed the premise so what's the point? There is plenty of evidence, but if you have already decided not to objectively look at it so this whole discussion is a waste of time.
Consider the complexity of existing life, the extremely narrow environmental window which is required for this life to continue. You see a lucky chance and/or happy accident. I find it logically impossible for this to have just happened, given basic scientific facts from thermodynamics, mathematical probabilities and other commonly accepted facts. There are just too many things that had to be "just right" or none of this would be possible. Just a lucky chance? Mathematically impossible, just like the monkey/Typewriter thought experiment turns out to be.
Because you reject the foundational world view that offers a logical solution to this issue, you are forced to accept such difficulties in your theory, defensible or not. Further, because of the implications of even considering that there might be a creator, you are left with no choice but to do what you can to defend the indefensible, even if you have to ignore standard scientific facts to do so.
So, from my perspective, it is not I who has an issue with scientific facts. Unlike many creationists, I will admit to difficulties in having a scientific debate about the background world view of a creationist, but this is because they are NOT scientific questions. However, I find few ardent Evolutionists, bent on dismissing creationism to be honest thinkers who are ready to admit the difficulties of their view, and even fewer who can demonstrate that they've actually considered the evidence presented. You are not in either of these groups so I strongly suggest you think about the REAL questions you have, not these logical straw men.
The Knnect sensor is quite a nice feature if you ask me but the *real* problem is with the whole game console industry and not with the various user interfaces. The game console industry is being squeezed out of the market by smartphones and tablets with touch screens. Yea, the user interface on these devices really sucks for classic game design, but they are extremely portable, have a very active application development communities and hundreds of cheap applications already available.
I expect the game console industry to continue it's decline, with some possible bumps along the way if they can come up with unique games that can only work on a console.
So did you purposely miss the point of my post? I'm pointing to logical flaws in evolution theory using some pretty simple illustrations and you revert back to the old standby response? Intent on not trying to think this though eh?
I'm glad you are willing to admit that there are gaps in evolution theory too because that means I can accuse you of having the same gap in your details to be worked out.... But this line of argument is like throwing hand grenades at the test range, whole lot of noise, no real results.
So just how long does it take before a monkey typing on random keys can create even the Gettysburg address? Will it ever happen? The math of it says it won't, even if you take thousands of monkeys, or a million, or.. You get the picture.
I understand the LONG time frames involved, nay required, for evolution, but I dare say that even billions of years are NOT long enough for the theory. There is a whole lot of entropy involved in time frames usually discussed for evolution, but the observable fact that entropy is always increasing as things run down towards disorder is plain to see. So you have a two fold problem. You must create order out of disorder to get even the simplest virus AND you must imagine a path that coddles, fosters, and/or directs huge amounts of additional complexity to rise up in face of entropy's inevitable increase. The problem here is that we only have about 13 Billion years to work with since the big bang and most of those where taken up getting the universe into it's current form. When you look at earth, you have only about 5.billion years in total. I dare say that this is not long enough, then you consider that for a lot of that time, earth was not habitable by any known life and your time starts to slip away rapidly and the Evolutionist starts getting pretty tight on available time.
But the real funny thing (well I find it amusing anyway) is that some would accuse me of lacking imagination, and others would say I have too much of it if I believe in a creator... Imagine the monkeys hitting random keys on typewriters... How long did this take? Think about thermodynamics and the first four laws (zero though three) which are observable and provable, then try to violate them for millions of years, in order to get complex life, order out of disorder and consider who's using their imagination here. The net effect of thermodynamics on random chance is another observable fact. Disorder tends to increase, and no amount of time can bring order.
So, I think we are at least at a logical impasse. I hope you understand the shear impossibility of what evolution teaches but I doubt you will be swayed in your view. Further, your argument is not very persuasive for me because simply adding time does not make impossible random chances possible when you add in thermodynamics with chance.
That is the basic reasoning of creationist. If you are a creationist, then that is your reasoning and denying is disingenuous.
Now, show credible scientific evidence a designer exists.
I disagree with you based on your premise. You think that just because my world view starts with a designer, it must be invalid. Of course I disagree with that.
So you go first... Show scientific evidence that there is no designer...
Asking good questions about someone else's position doesn't make your position any more right. You can poke holes all day in evolutionary theory and it'd still be way sounder than creationism, which by the way was the top scientific theory for thousands of years and never managed to explain a thing.
Ah.. Such is the lesson from history. As I recall, science once believed that the world was flat (with some help from the church). The question was not open for debate as the evidence was plane to see (pun intended). What was obviously flat, turned out to be just a very small slice of a very large sphere in the face of some observations coupled with some newly developed math. My point being, popular belief that a theory is true, even when we are talking about the science community, does not preclude the possibility that the popular view might be wrong. Asking difficult questions is really what science SHOULD be doing even if these questions fly in the face of what we think we "know" otherwise we can be guilty of the same stupidly that the "flat earth" lobby was.
So I disagree with your conclusion and choose so ask the difficult questions.
OK... I'll take the bait, but you are going to have to do two things or there is no point in this discussion. First, you need to pick some creationist claim of mine, THEN you are going to have to disprove it though observations. Choose wisely...
This is just the god of the gaps argument in disguise.
Not really. What I'm suggesting is Evolution science should take on the difficult questions posed by it's skeptics and not be dismissive just because there are alternate views. Perhaps the difficult questions are born of ignorance or misunderstanding. Perhaps they expose issues with the popular theory of the day. Perhaps the asking of the question will lead us to investigate further and discover something of importance. This is true for all sides of such debates. Nobody will know for sure if the question is not struggled with.
"My holy book says so" is not fact-based reasoning.
I have NOT used such an argument in this forum, nor would I attempt to try and talk you into accepting such an argument.
Why would you assume this is the basis of my reasoning? Oh, Yea, I get it, Anybody who would bring up obvious difficulties in what you believe has to be some religious book thumper so you can wave your hand and dismiss them.
I would suggest that you stick to your real arguments and skip this part.
Why would a creator insert broken copies of viral DNA into his creations? I've never heard a good creationist explanation for that.
Why is this a problem for you? Just to point out that where I may be a Creationist, that doesn't mean the mutation and natural selection processes are being debated here. Both processes can be observed. Keeping that in mind...
I would propose three possible ways to explain this. First a designer is free to reuse pieces and parts of past designs in new ones. Second, there has obviously been interactions between virus and other species that has occurred in the past. Third, finding small sequences of DNA that match when you only have 4 building blocks is not so hard to imagine given that they are not claiming a full copy of the virus, only small fragments.
With the exception of the starting point implied by number 1, I don't see any difference between our views on this riddle you proposed.
And if you'd care to explain how sexual reproduction...
Just taking individual parts of a car and saying "None of the systems can exist without the others so they must have been `designed` at the same time to work together" is just bullshit.
Ok.. So you got the bull, now where is the cow so we can keep things going here? (smile)
Looking around the barnyard, off hand I see two major reproductive methods that are hard to explain how they come about using the theory of evolution. For example: The chickens lay eggs, which develop and hatch into chickens, and the Cows give birth to to a calf. Using the evolution theory, one must argue that these two methods somehow evolved into existence. Problem here is that in order to make the jump from asexual to sexual reproduction it takes two independent mutations happening at the same time and location that produce a male and female before you get the transition. Seems that this implies pretty long odds. Then if you consider the observed rate of mutation we currently see, the probabilities that such a complex system as even simple sexual reproduction just happens gets very very remote (arguably impossible).
Taking your car argument, I would argue for a designer (i.e. a creator) when looking at a system as complex as even a model-T. Obviously somebody took the time to design the parts, manufacturer the parts and assemble them because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created. So why is it not a good argument for one fundamental part of a complex thing we call life? This is true even if you break the Model-T into it's basic parts. A simple gear, nut or bolt is not going to appear from nowhere much less assemble themselves into a running model-T. How much more complex is even simple life?
My point here is not to convince you that you should be a creationist, but that there are problems raised by them that are not easily dismissed. You would do well to at least consider how best to answer the issues they raise.
We know they are wrong based on observational science.
Yet their remains persistent and valid questions posed by folks that you "know" are wrong that cannot be answered. On what basis do you conclude that they are "wrong based on observational science"? What observations do they ignore or use incorrectly?
Even more to the point, which points of your view do you find most difficult to defend or have you not ever thought about that? I'll wager you have not engaged in a thoughtful and honest investigation about the creationists position and the questions they raise about your position. If you had, you'd not be so quick to dismiss them as outright wrong.
Your statement is not true. Creationism is based on specific facts, just like the theory of evolution. Some facts may be in dispute, but it is not fair to say there is no factual basis for Creationism because there is factual evidence for both views. So the problem is not that creationism or evolution lacks a factual basis (they both have supporting facts) but that one theory or the other may have difficulty with specific facts. Both perspectives have difficulties explaining some things and tend to discount the importance of such difficulties on their arguments. Saying: "your argument ignores the facts!" is NOT a helpful statement and it is NOT true in this case.
The problem that evolutionists have with creationism is about how specific observations (facts) are explained. That does not mean creationism is not based on facts only that the evolutionist chooses to use facts differently. Both sides need to step back from the logical extremes here and be honest about their respective arguments and stop these "Your position is not based on facts" argument. Useful discussions about facts will do more to expose the truth than making senseless pronouncements about the opposing view which are not true.
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
And if you'd care to explain how sexual reproduction (where it takes TWO previously asexual reproducers to appear in the same place at the same time ready to reproduce sexually) evolved in multiple species using multiple methods happened? I'd like to understand how that's possible.
Damn scientists, perverting military tech for their inhumanly-focused aims.
How would you feel, if you were a contractor who worked on one of these satellites and who always assumed it would be used for some kind of warlike purpose -- maybe even to locate someone or something which needs to be blown up -- only to discover your work was going to be used for peaceful purposes?
Yea, I'd be upset. We have never re-purposed technology from war to peace before. It has NEVER happened except for, HUMV's, motorcycles, atomic energy, aerodynamics, satellites used for communications, GPS, LORAN, encryption, radio communications, computers, explosives, Helicopters, emergency medicine, phased array antennas, ceramics, semiconductors, jet engines, transport aircraft, and WD-40, just to name a few.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you are understanding the character of this issue. Yes, foreign spies operating in the US need to be worried, and yes we should and do take steps to deal with such activities. I expect other countries to do the same for spies located in their borders... But at issue here is intelligence gathered from domestic sources about foreign communications. Basically the law gives the CIA the right to monitor communications that cross our borders, despite the fact that at least one side of the conversation is domestic and domestic monitoring usually requires a warrant.
If foreign countries "freak out" over such monitoring, so be it, but they are free to do the same for communications that cross their border. Many other countries do exactly the same thing, as well as filter the allowed communications where the US doesn't filter.
The US is not being inconsistent in how it treats the rest of the world here. In fact, if anything we are much less tolerant to monitoring domestically than almost all of the rest of the world which makes us a much easier target for spying. Seems our constitution does a good job of protecting us from such abuses, or at least it has so far.
So do you suggest that we apply the same rules of evidence used in our courts to inelegance gathering overseas? So shall we just go to the international courts to get warrants? I don't think that's a workable solution.
Don't make international calls.... Specifically, don't call somebody in the list of countries where the bad guys frequent....
What this article leaves out and the reader should know, is that it is illegal for the federal government to monitor domestic communications without a warrant. There is no such protection afforded non-citizens outside of the USA. At issue is when the CIA (or other foreign intelligence gathering organization of the Federal Government) is monitoring a foreign national outside of the USA who may be talking to someone inside the states. The "loophole" they are talking about basically is that as long as the collection target is not a domestic US citizen, any information gathered is legal to keep, even if it involves a domestic party. It must also be understood that such evidence would NOT be admissible in court for a criminal trial having not been obtained though a warrant. I wonder if it could legally be used as probable cause to obtain the warrant though.
I personally don't see the huge issue with this, unless we are seeing a rash of prosecutions based on such evidence. I have heard of no such cases. Further, unless the Fed is really not trying to filter the data at all, it is unlikely that they have much data that they have to purge. After all, this IS an investigative effort that targets non-US-citizens so it makes sense their filtering is pretty good, or this effort would be useless.
I'll guess that the guys with the tinfoil hats who are looking for the black helicopters won't like this, but I'd be much more worried about Google or Facebook collection efforts than this.
I'm thinking that you need to keep the "safe search" option turned on if you type that stuff into Google and expect to actually find a recipe for brownies anywhere near the top of the list.
This is why I stay logged out of my Google account whenever possible and only access Facebook when I absolutely have to. Privacy is dead. Google talks a good talk with "Don't be evil", but actions speak louder than words. And Facebook might be the biggest enemy of privacy on the web right now.
Best you be deleting your cookies too or all is for naught... In fact, I'd be deleting all cookies and history every time I started a browser if I was you. Further, I'd also try and get a new IP address from your ISP on a regular basis. Even then, good luck with not being tracked.
Oh heck, Just stay off the web, take the battery out of your cell phone and never go outside....
Moving to the cloud is easier, which is why we keep considering it. It is easier to off load the work onto some cloud operator who is supposed to do it better and possibly cheaper, or at least it LOOKS easier. No more dealing with backup tapes, No more dealing with software licenses and the like, just pay your vendor of choice copy all your data onto the cloud and start tossing hardware and the people that managed it out the door.
Problem here is that doing this job right, on a budget, and on time is FAR from easy. Plus, it is going to be very difficult to verify that your vendor is actually doing the job correctly, considering that the hardware isn't accessible, being located in some server room some distance away. Who knows if they actually do backups of anything, much less actually do off site storage of recovery media. My guess is that as competition in this area heats up, prices will fall with quality falling too. Costs will be trimmed by eliminating skilled labor and without skilled labor the whole house of cards will fall.
Seems to me that the cloud may be a short term gain for most, but in the long run, dumping your infrastructure and the people that go with it is going to bite you eventually, unless the business is very small.
Finally, the biggest messes I've had to clean up had very little to do with a hardware failure or some loss of data. The worst messes I've seen where caused by some administrative error.... Replacing the wrong disk in the RAID, causing the total data loss or not thinking though a command before hitting enter. I don't see how being on a cloud will fix this kind of thing.
Oh no....... So we are going to have a cake and not be able to eat it in bed now because we didn't make it? The horror!
Most applications that use MySQL that I've seen decided to use imbeded hard coded usernames and passwords (usually for the SA user) so there was no security anyway. The few solutions I've seen that actually used unique usernames and passwords and not SA, usually used an external authentication method so the database didn't have any passwords to expose.
Finding out about this now doesn't scare me all that much. If you had used a good security design and practice, there should be limited exposure of usernames and passwords, but if your design and practice sucks, expect to get hacked and not be able to do anything about it.
But it scares the shit out of me to think that Iran is running WINDOWS on sensitive installations, for Uranium processing (even for reactors it is not exactly *safe* material) or other important security/safety functions. If this stupidity exists elsewhere in the world, we live in a VERY SCARY world (like most of the people in the world, probably, I don't live that many miles from a nuclear plant).
Iran is free to use Windows for what ever they choose and it's fine by me. Just don't run Windows to control the nuke plant in my backyard.
The really scary thing is that folks actually believe that MAD (a Cold War stance) is a good strategy for dealing with Iran... The US generally already has the ability to turn the bulk of Iran in to glass and it doesn't seem to be bothering them. Now you are suggesting that we simply allow them to develop the ability to do the same to the US? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me, given their rhetoric (not to mention their actual activity) in the region and the US's obvious disinterest in engaging IRAN beyond just disrupting their nuclear progress.
But who are we kidding... Iran is destine to be as relevant as North Korea if the sanctions now in place are continued for a few years. (A big IF). Yea, it would be a huge mess if a war started, but could the outcome be in question? The longer we can keep sanctions working, the less of a mess it becomes, so while I'm not a MAD proponent, I am a "wait and see" advocate, assuming Iran doesn't do something stupid, like shooting at some aircraft carrier going though the straights or trying to shutdown oil shipping.
I think the Iranians know that a full out war with the US would not end well for them, so they have so far only threatened to escalate the conflict. The wild card here is Israel. If Israel decides that the risk of a nuclear blast over Tel Aviv is getting to great for them, you can bet that Iran will soon loose the ability by direct strikes if necessary. The risk being that the whole middle east would come apart at the seams and the US would get drawn into a wider conflict. This is my greatest worry, not that they choose to run Windows based computers
Who decides some Species is invasive and what is the criteria for making this claim?
There are invasive species, to be sure, but what exactly makes something invasive? And how is this different from evolution? A more adapted species finds its way into an ecosystem where it can thrive due to lack of predators or by being better adapted to the conditions just seems to be the natural way of things... Unless, gasp, we don't really believe that evolution is a good thing...
Pardon to all the Asian Carp, Zebra Mussels and Kudzu individuals out there.
For the same reason they have such certainty about the things they think they "know". The whole global warming debate is a fascinating study of human psychology.
It is very interesting to be sure. On slashdot folks get moded down for even a sideways critique of Global Warming. What this world is coming too.
Mode parent up!!
What we really have is NOT a scientific debate about facts, but a debate over differing world views. You want proof by facts, but you have already dismissed the premise so what's the point? There is plenty of evidence, but if you have already decided not to objectively look at it so this whole discussion is a waste of time.
Consider the complexity of existing life, the extremely narrow environmental window which is required for this life to continue. You see a lucky chance and/or happy accident. I find it logically impossible for this to have just happened, given basic scientific facts from thermodynamics, mathematical probabilities and other commonly accepted facts. There are just too many things that had to be "just right" or none of this would be possible. Just a lucky chance? Mathematically impossible, just like the monkey/Typewriter thought experiment turns out to be.
Because you reject the foundational world view that offers a logical solution to this issue, you are forced to accept such difficulties in your theory, defensible or not. Further, because of the implications of even considering that there might be a creator, you are left with no choice but to do what you can to defend the indefensible, even if you have to ignore standard scientific facts to do so.
So, from my perspective, it is not I who has an issue with scientific facts. Unlike many creationists, I will admit to difficulties in having a scientific debate about the background world view of a creationist, but this is because they are NOT scientific questions. However, I find few ardent Evolutionists, bent on dismissing creationism to be honest thinkers who are ready to admit the difficulties of their view, and even fewer who can demonstrate that they've actually considered the evidence presented. You are not in either of these groups so I strongly suggest you think about the REAL questions you have, not these logical straw men.
The Knnect sensor is quite a nice feature if you ask me but the *real* problem is with the whole game console industry and not with the various user interfaces. The game console industry is being squeezed out of the market by smartphones and tablets with touch screens. Yea, the user interface on these devices really sucks for classic game design, but they are extremely portable, have a very active application development communities and hundreds of cheap applications already available.
I expect the game console industry to continue it's decline, with some possible bumps along the way if they can come up with unique games that can only work on a console.
So did you purposely miss the point of my post? I'm pointing to logical flaws in evolution theory using some pretty simple illustrations and you revert back to the old standby response? Intent on not trying to think this though eh?
I'm glad you are willing to admit that there are gaps in evolution theory too because that means I can accuse you of having the same gap in your details to be worked out.... But this line of argument is like throwing hand grenades at the test range, whole lot of noise, no real results.
So just how long does it take before a monkey typing on random keys can create even the Gettysburg address? Will it ever happen? The math of it says it won't, even if you take thousands of monkeys, or a million, or.. You get the picture.
I understand the LONG time frames involved, nay required, for evolution, but I dare say that even billions of years are NOT long enough for the theory. There is a whole lot of entropy involved in time frames usually discussed for evolution, but the observable fact that entropy is always increasing as things run down towards disorder is plain to see. So you have a two fold problem. You must create order out of disorder to get even the simplest virus AND you must imagine a path that coddles, fosters, and/or directs huge amounts of additional complexity to rise up in face of entropy's inevitable increase. The problem here is that we only have about 13 Billion years to work with since the big bang and most of those where taken up getting the universe into it's current form. When you look at earth, you have only about 5.billion years in total. I dare say that this is not long enough, then you consider that for a lot of that time, earth was not habitable by any known life and your time starts to slip away rapidly and the Evolutionist starts getting pretty tight on available time.
But the real funny thing (well I find it amusing anyway) is that some would accuse me of lacking imagination, and others would say I have too much of it if I believe in a creator... Imagine the monkeys hitting random keys on typewriters... How long did this take? Think about thermodynamics and the first four laws (zero though three) which are observable and provable, then try to violate them for millions of years, in order to get complex life, order out of disorder and consider who's using their imagination here. The net effect of thermodynamics on random chance is another observable fact. Disorder tends to increase, and no amount of time can bring order.
So, I think we are at least at a logical impasse. I hope you understand the shear impossibility of what evolution teaches but I doubt you will be swayed in your view. Further, your argument is not very persuasive for me because simply adding time does not make impossible random chances possible when you add in thermodynamics with chance.
That is the basic reasoning of creationist. If you are a creationist, then that is your reasoning and denying is disingenuous.
Now, show credible scientific evidence a designer exists.
I disagree with you based on your premise. You think that just because my world view starts with a designer, it must be invalid. Of course I disagree with that.
So you go first... Show scientific evidence that there is no designer...
OK, I'll step up if you won't.. I accept natural selection as valid based on simple observations...
Your answer?
Asking good questions about someone else's position doesn't make your position any more right. You can poke holes all day in evolutionary theory and it'd still be way sounder than creationism, which by the way was the top scientific theory for thousands of years and never managed to explain a thing.
Ah.. Such is the lesson from history. As I recall, science once believed that the world was flat (with some help from the church). The question was not open for debate as the evidence was plane to see (pun intended). What was obviously flat, turned out to be just a very small slice of a very large sphere in the face of some observations coupled with some newly developed math. My point being, popular belief that a theory is true, even when we are talking about the science community, does not preclude the possibility that the popular view might be wrong. Asking difficult questions is really what science SHOULD be doing even if these questions fly in the face of what we think we "know" otherwise we can be guilty of the same stupidly that the "flat earth" lobby was.
So I disagree with your conclusion and choose so ask the difficult questions.
OK... I'll take the bait, but you are going to have to do two things or there is no point in this discussion. First, you need to pick some creationist claim of mine, THEN you are going to have to disprove it though observations. Choose wisely...
Ready.... Set..... Go!
This is just the god of the gaps argument in disguise.
Not really. What I'm suggesting is Evolution science should take on the difficult questions posed by it's skeptics and not be dismissive just because there are alternate views. Perhaps the difficult questions are born of ignorance or misunderstanding. Perhaps they expose issues with the popular theory of the day. Perhaps the asking of the question will lead us to investigate further and discover something of importance. This is true for all sides of such debates. Nobody will know for sure if the question is not struggled with.
Creationism is based on specific facts,
"My holy book says so" is not fact-based reasoning.
I have NOT used such an argument in this forum, nor would I attempt to try and talk you into accepting such an argument.
Why would you assume this is the basis of my reasoning? Oh, Yea, I get it, Anybody who would bring up obvious difficulties in what you believe has to be some religious book thumper so you can wave your hand and dismiss them.
I would suggest that you stick to your real arguments and skip this part.
Why would a creator insert broken copies of viral DNA into his creations? I've never heard a good creationist explanation for that.
Why is this a problem for you? Just to point out that where I may be a Creationist, that doesn't mean the mutation and natural selection processes are being debated here. Both processes can be observed. Keeping that in mind...
I would propose three possible ways to explain this. First a designer is free to reuse pieces and parts of past designs in new ones. Second, there has obviously been interactions between virus and other species that has occurred in the past. Third, finding small sequences of DNA that match when you only have 4 building blocks is not so hard to imagine given that they are not claiming a full copy of the virus, only small fragments.
With the exception of the starting point implied by number 1, I don't see any difference between our views on this riddle you proposed.
And if you'd care to explain how sexual reproduction...
Just taking individual parts of a car and saying "None of the systems can exist without the others so they must have been `designed` at the same time to work together" is just bullshit.
Ok.. So you got the bull, now where is the cow so we can keep things going here? (smile)
Looking around the barnyard, off hand I see two major reproductive methods that are hard to explain how they come about using the theory of evolution. For example: The chickens lay eggs, which develop and hatch into chickens, and the Cows give birth to to a calf. Using the evolution theory, one must argue that these two methods somehow evolved into existence. Problem here is that in order to make the jump from asexual to sexual reproduction it takes two independent mutations happening at the same time and location that produce a male and female before you get the transition. Seems that this implies pretty long odds. Then if you consider the observed rate of mutation we currently see, the probabilities that such a complex system as even simple sexual reproduction just happens gets very very remote (arguably impossible).
Taking your car argument, I would argue for a designer (i.e. a creator) when looking at a system as complex as even a model-T. Obviously somebody took the time to design the parts, manufacturer the parts and assemble them because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created. So why is it not a good argument for one fundamental part of a complex thing we call life? This is true even if you break the Model-T into it's basic parts. A simple gear, nut or bolt is not going to appear from nowhere much less assemble themselves into a running model-T. How much more complex is even simple life?
My point here is not to convince you that you should be a creationist, but that there are problems raised by them that are not easily dismissed. You would do well to at least consider how best to answer the issues they raise.
We know they are wrong based on observational science.
Yet their remains persistent and valid questions posed by folks that you "know" are wrong that cannot be answered. On what basis do you conclude that they are "wrong based on observational science"? What observations do they ignore or use incorrectly?
Even more to the point, which points of your view do you find most difficult to defend or have you not ever thought about that? I'll wager you have not engaged in a thoughtful and honest investigation about the creationists position and the questions they raise about your position. If you had, you'd not be so quick to dismiss them as outright wrong.
because creationism is not based in any facts.
Your statement is not true. Creationism is based on specific facts, just like the theory of evolution. Some facts may be in dispute, but it is not fair to say there is no factual basis for Creationism because there is factual evidence for both views. So the problem is not that creationism or evolution lacks a factual basis (they both have supporting facts) but that one theory or the other may have difficulty with specific facts. Both perspectives have difficulties explaining some things and tend to discount the importance of such difficulties on their arguments. Saying: "your argument ignores the facts!" is NOT a helpful statement and it is NOT true in this case.
The problem that evolutionists have with creationism is about how specific observations (facts) are explained. That does not mean creationism is not based on facts only that the evolutionist chooses to use facts differently. Both sides need to step back from the logical extremes here and be honest about their respective arguments and stop these "Your position is not based on facts" argument. Useful discussions about facts will do more to expose the truth than making senseless pronouncements about the opposing view which are not true.
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
And if you'd care to explain how sexual reproduction (where it takes TWO previously asexual reproducers to appear in the same place at the same time ready to reproduce sexually) evolved in multiple species using multiple methods happened? I'd like to understand how that's possible.
Damn scientists, perverting military tech for their inhumanly-focused aims.
How would you feel, if you were a contractor who worked on one of these satellites and who always assumed it would be used for some kind of warlike purpose -- maybe even to locate someone or something which needs to be blown up -- only to discover your work was going to be used for peaceful purposes?
Yea, I'd be upset. We have never re-purposed technology from war to peace before. It has NEVER happened except for, HUMV's, motorcycles, atomic energy, aerodynamics, satellites used for communications, GPS, LORAN, encryption, radio communications, computers, explosives, Helicopters, emergency medicine, phased array antennas, ceramics, semiconductors, jet engines, transport aircraft, and WD-40, just to name a few.