If we only had 1 eye, that would indeed be a problem. Fortunately, God designed us with two.
In which we have a blind spot. There is a certain Area in frotn of you for which you cannot see and your brain makes up. That is it fabricates somethign that shoudl go there and makes you believe you see it while you do not. There are ways to trick it and get soem illusionary effects. Also ours eyes are pretty inefficient compared to eagle eyes, or othe rpreditory eyes.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying so please forgive me for asking this. I am really trying to just understand your viewpoint. It seems to me that you just dismissed the entire Bible and what it says concerning salvation. Based on what you said, can't anyone who has faith in a false religion then expect to enter Heaven? I guess what I'm asking is, how do you know you have faith in the right thing?
I do not dismiss the entire bible but I am aware of it's origins and weaknesses. It cannot be divine because of it's "translations" have signifigant errors. For instance which Love does Jesus refer to when he says love thy neighbor? In aramaic there are 3 loves. How can it be divine and still mistranslate. And you cannot tell me of King James I of England was a kind and holy man who was benevolent and theological. He made the version to re-enforce his own power.
If all bibles are equal then why do they differ in content and translation. If all bibles are not equal how can you tell which one is divine. If you must find a median consensus between bibles to find the right one then it is clearly not divine.
The bible is a collection of holy writings. A guide to being and living as a christian with words of compfort (psalms) with advice and exemplars of behavior and a moral teaching. It is the back bone of christianity. I beleive they are inspired by god and contain gods words but written by human hands. We have no other garentee of salvation but by our faith in God. I read it, I hold it dear. But I do not fetishize it as some wings of chritianity do. I wholy aware that the current form and translation will always have weaknesses of launguage and that to know what is said you must take it in context and research the older launguages. As it is said Jesus was the only perfect human, thus each prophet and each diciple was only human and their writing, thogh divinly inspired, have their draw backs as well.
Why is our eye designed inefficiently? Who said our eye is ineffecient?.
Because we have a large blindspot that can be designed around but hasn't. If the blood vesels are there to protect against UV (which it does not) then why have the central blood supply right in the middle casuing a blind spot.
A lot of devices have a master reset mode which is triggered by pressing 2 or more specific buttons. My belle express vu thing has this. I once forgot the pin to ummm unblock the adult channels and had to do this umm.. for my GF. yeah thats it.
If you are expecting everything to be perfect as it was when God first created it, then you are as those that Peter warned about that think that all things continue the same from creation. If you read the Bible, when God finished creating, he said it was very good. In other words, everything was perfect. But then Adam & Eve sinned and the earth was cursed. Now, instead of everything remaining perfect, the scientific law that things tend toward disorder kicked in and things (including people and animals) began to devolve into less-complex rather than evolve into more complex. (Why is it that evolutionists believe everything in the universe is subject to this except for living organisms? WHy do they believe living organisms start with the so-called simple single celled organisms - which really isn't so simple - and become more complex and more ordered?) That's why God did not prohibit close-relatives from marrying until the time of Moses. Prior to the time of Moses, genetic mutations had not accumulated enough to be a concern that offspring would be harmed by both parents having the same genetic mutation. But by the time of Moses, things had devolved enough, enough genetic mutations had occured that it was dangerous for close-relatives to have offspring together.
As with entropy things (systems more precisly get more complex) The longer a biological system persist the more complex it gets.
You really should study the history of the Bible and the various translations. I suggest An Understandable History of the Bible as a good start.
If you do not believe the Bible is God's word, how do you know 100% for sure you are saved and will spend eternity in Heaven?
That my friend is faith. I worship him and obey him not to save myself but because I love him. And if like job I must suffer for this love so be it. And if I am never rewarded for my love of him then I still have my love of him.
The dog is still a dog, the bacteria is still bacteria
Dogs are nto the same. A st. Bernard cannot mate with a shitzu thus are actually a different species. A G-galactose->G-lactose bacteria is not pheno typically diffrent. thus we see evolution. Thus Creationists define their own narrow truths, You want a Cat to become a dog to show you but that would be proof of creationism. What then would it require for you to say it's evolution? Thats the problem there is nothing. You siimply defined your problem away. However the problem still stands. There is insurmountable proof the universe is old. And there is insumountable proof that Anomals evolve and redefining the problem has not removed this.
Quit simply you cannot defeate the evidence. Your attempts to seperate selection and evolution do not work. How is A documented gene line such as the dogs evolution from one gerneral form to several specialized forms not constitute evolution? They are phenotypical and genetically different and speciation has happened to many members of the gene line. Thats evolution.
I am not observing mitosis and calling it fetal alchohol syndrom I'm viewing selection and callign it evolution.
Also should my gene line ever differentiate enough to speciate then they might carry this common malaria resistance gene.
If God man man complete and perfect, why do we have a vestigual appendix? Why is our eye designed inefficiently?
Even Jesus said if we love him, we will keep his commandments.
I use the Bible for support because even God magnifies his word above even his own name
Keeping his word and worshiping the bible are two different issues. Jesus wrote no text. His word is not what in the bible, his paraphrased words are. And if they are divine and not divinly inspired then you must then go to their source and not read any interpretation because each interpretation has it's weakness. NIV to KJV to Catholic. If you believe that God told the Clerigy of the 6th centry to cannons the exact books in the bible then you should remain a catholic, because it is the catholic church which chose which books were made into the bible. If you do not then your claim the bible is divine cannot be true because it was put together by man. This is a paradox. If you think God told the clerigy then you should be catholic, since the catholics did that. If you do not then the work is a collation of human works inspired by God and hold no authority in this argument. The reformation was as political as it was theological thus it cannot be divine in inspiration.
Just like people don't drive cars because there's so many models of car to chose from but only bus.
This is because the input for a car as essentially the same. There as much difference in control from a 2004 civic SI and 1998 Mustang GT as there is between windows XP and windows XP pro. Thats is very subtle differences.
Contrast this fromt he difference between XP and Solaris or GNOME. For now opensource is too conplicated for the majority of users. Hell XP is too but since they have a large base of users to draw help from and they are often required to use it. So they eventually aquire some skills. Thus they are the technically enept that will never adapt to a new OS since thier current one is just barely within their abilities to use. I work as tech support I know this.
I like open source projects. If I found one which I could contribute to I'd be more then happy. I both use and write little apps on a couple red hat machines. But I know the market. I know that a large amount of people can barely us XP or Mac OSX so going with a closed system with subscription might make them feel ebtter. because nwo theres someone to blame and a point of leverage. If you don't fix it I won't pay next month. As opposed to, if you don't fix it I won't buy your next $500 version 4 years form now.
What if somebody invents a brand new killer app, but you're still locked into a contract with your current PC vendor that doesn't include that killer app? Such would have been the case at the start of the consumer desktop video editing era. Because PCs are general-purpose, users could just install stripped-down video editing and effects software. With locked-down rental PCs, on the other hand, they would have to wait to re-up their PC leases before using such a killer app.
And for the vast majority of PC users they wouldn't feel any difference. Owing just a PC disbars me from using Mac video editing tools. It also disbars me from running Solaris (well previously).
For tom dick and harry all they woudl know is "wow thats cool. I wonder when they'll bring it to Sony Everythign station 6." You've seen it. You know it. People don't liek to wonder far so if they invented an app that gave 4 extra years to your life just by using it regularly, 80% of all humans being woudl not switch. We just happen to on slashdot, if such a device exsisted 80% of us would try to install linux on it and chain it togetehr in beowolf clusters.
When I say energy density I mean how much energy you can exstract. If the density is so low that the required land is more then you have available then i'd say thats good cause to say it isn't a solution. Wind is pretty low.
We do not see one kind of organism evolving into another kind of organism
This is a false arguement. You using your own definition of an event to prove another event has not happened. It's a logical fallacy. A circular argument.
A organism has in fact evolved to another. We have observed Dog changing into sub species of dogs and many are not interbreedable. We have seen BActeria change diatary habits which for bacteria is the very definition of a species. G-Galactose eating bacteria A becomes G-lactose eacting backertia B because of random mutations and a selection mechanism. I am myself an example as I hold Malaria resitant genes that confer some benifit (I can't get malaria) with some draw backs (1/4 of my bloodcells are cripples, I have a go through folic acid at an alarming rate and I can't run marathons). This gene stays in the populace because it provides a benifit. It is in fact a very common gene in Malaria affected Areas.
And no you cannot split the definition of Evolution to say "well yes that happened but it's not evolution". It is presicely what evolution is. I provided 3 examples of the top of my head. It occured in the past, it occurs now.
don't you realize that your arguments has so far been contentless and that you are using debating tricks and not addressing the facts? Your using logical falacies, redefinition of terms, straw man arguements, and a numerous other erronous tactics to try and convince me your right. But have offered nothing besides bibble passages from KJV which few branches of christianity use as proof.
My one counter example stands. The speed of light. the link you provided rationalizes why this would be so but does not give any sunstance to the argument. It accuses evolution of being build out of a card of houses then goes and starts heaping assumption on assumption. Evolution is a theory because A: it has re-enforcing examples and a consitant logic. and B makes accurate predictions of certain observed behavior.
As for Satan. Satan liek to obscure truth. He is the first and ultimate liar. Would he not want to obscure the elegance of Gods works and systems? If god engeneered something so beuatiful woudl he then hide it himself?
It's called repition of word, it's a good way to re-enforce a point and also I'm a logic nerd. So if I'm paying attention my statements are always 100% logically correct and re-enforce my point (note the qualification of this statement).
But my point stands. Large scale solar collectors or Large scale anything will tend to hurt the enviroment. For instance the bio diesel idea. You require a huge area that gets sunlight. Well having a large bio mas there and a large body of water will result on a grand change to the econology of the area. For solar, the parts to make them are pretty nasty and they have a finite usable life span. Imagine having to find a place for 100 tons of gallnium arsnide.
Friendlier takes some research to find. Is biodiesel friendlier? Is wind friendlier? Maybe, but you should do some comparison with nuclear. Don't just evaluate the toxicity and deadliness of the by product but also the ammount and the enviromental affects. for instance nuclear power raises the temperature of the surrounding area. Wind power disapates the winds kinetic energy and results in alter wind patterns. Solar power also heat up the local area and require a lot of space. Hydro wrecks the local area and occasionally leaks or bursts. Tidal power will anihhalte fish and alter the local currents...
There are some suggestions I think are great. Every house should be roofed with solar panels and thye government shoudl subsidize this. Every home should be as efficient as possible, the government shoudl subsidize this. Every person shoudl try an turn off anythign they don't use. Recycling is a good idea, package reduction is better, and buying with no packagin where we can is best.
I'm am an enviromentalist but I know that ideal solutions are never ideal (repitition again). And there there are side effects, and problems with energy density.
Can we replace traditional sources of power with wind/solar: no. They won't provide enough energy to account for our needs.
Can we usilize them to augment: yes. Any reduction on our oil dependency is good.
But nuclear is as about as good as we can think of. A modern reactor has a high energy potential with a comparativly lower per KWH damage ratio and the disposal is an issue but is so for all technologies. If nuclear the best choice? Maybe maybe not. But it sure beats oil and coal.
By this logic, Thermo dynamics is a religion. As is quantum physics, integral math, and a whole host of other things. Their all theories that take a set of asumptions and cannot be un-equivically disproved however they make some accurate predictions and thus are used as the basis for further theories.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a alternative theory with theological over tones and little proof. they are not equivilent.
gourmet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gr-m, grm) n. A connoisseur of fine food and drink.
I cook some very nice dishes, Scallops wrapped with bacon, Nice look chocolate deserts with liquer. Lots of interetsing and tasty dishes just a little left of what everyone else does. I'd think I qualify.
does this coming "appliance era" spell the end of affordable general-purpose PC hardware for residential use?
No. Just the end to warez and code your own adventures. For the vast majority of people their vision for computer use would be more comforting. The human mind ussually isn't goot at more then 5 or 6 choices. When you have literally dozens of choices to be made, most people will not sign on no matte rhwo attractive you make all the choices. thus OSS and Free and in beer software won't be for consumers and never was. Right now, Windows XP pro costs more then the computer I install it on 60% of the time. Not a huge leap to make XP subscription and to giev away the computer.
I think you seriously overestimate the ability of people to get together and form any type of coherent and covert action. Even CIA and KGB aren't as good at it as you would require and Satan plays a different game. Evolution does not deny God. There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. You simply divided the subset of people who agree with you adn those who don't. Your subset is small, our subset is large. Evolution is theory which has a lot of emperical weight. Creationist theory does not. You have some serious rationalization and alteration of current scientific theory to accomadate you theory. Which is very bad science. You cannot assume all atronomers are wrong and that a small group of Christian ministry geeks know more then Nasa and all the University on astronomy and astro physics. You can assume theirs some grand conspiracy to keep your point of view down, but as with all conspiracies, there isn't a sufficient insentive for so many people to work so hard against yoru point of view. Thus you are left to take it that your point of view may not be correct. The education system in the US is the most theologically influenced of any in the western world. Evolution isn't taught in a great many states, or taught as the flaky alternative to creationism. You are not the victim, you are the agressor in abotu half of the united states. In canada I went to a catholic school, they taught evolution. no problem. Only certain parts of the christian faith teach creationism. You have to accept that you are not some Defiant van gaurd of a christian faith. You are a statistical out lier dening a well supported theory. Like the flat earth society.
There is more diversity in your opponent then in your supportes, your claim requires a fairly large conspiracy of a vast amount of very different people all with the purpose of refuting God however, Very few are refuting god.
It's a term introduced by creationists. To me, it's simply selection and speciation. to them is a "de-evolution". Selection and speciation are scientific terms to cover the definition of micro-evolution. Macro evolution is use to seperate the two since you cannot deny one. It's a linguistic trick. If you have to debate soemthing, and it has strong suport, split the issue into topics which can be better fought by your side. Like make a accomadation that yes in fct my comapny kills millions of people, but split the issue and say "it was their choice".
Macro-evolution isn't anything more then the re-application of micro evolution, thus it's another name for evolution since it's simply the iteration of selection/mutation and they introduce it to try and seperate the issue. The one they cannot deny and the one they wish to deny. Notice many of the debatign tricks used in the arguement of creationsist, liek confusing the subject with special terms. Making great leaps of logic saying Evolution is not disporvable therefore invalid. Using the idea of "Consperacies" to re-enforce their point and minimize evidence that are couter examples to their point. Using emotional arguements with no proof. Even look in my own post log and see some of the responses to my arguements. Also thy use sources from their own side as reliable sources while at the same tiem belittling sources from the other side.
I use some of the same tricks. But the evidence is on my side. The very counter example of "light and the universe" is enough to defeat most simpel creationists arguments while a more sophisticated creationist arguement doesn't agree with the reason why creationism still exsist, namly fundementalism.
Hello? What you are saying is that the effect is the same, not the cause. No one argues (well, in this debate) that we aren't here. The argument is about how we *got* here.
Evolution is the result of selection. Micro evolution is a silly misnomer for selection/mutation. Macro evolution is also a misnomer. neither term is ever used in academia except theology. The other point? I don't see how it relates to my post? Our current understanding of gravity is a refinement and alteration of newtons, his was a subset or special case of the more general case.
All art is perception. All perception is biology. All biology is science. All science (except math) is empiricism. All empiricism is creative. All creativity is art.
Some broad connections there. Art is just perception is more. and perception isn't all biology. Do you mean the fact that by perceiving somethign I go through a biological proccess? what if my computer percives something? All sicence isn't just measurement. Sometimes it's gigantics leaps in logic.
The true art is making a french dish in a chinese kitchen with chinese ingredients. I've had to do that. God damn that wok gets hot fast. I had to make the white suace 4 time cuase the wok kept burning it.
I'm a regular Joe, I picked up some equipment and well I run a restraunt:). A chinese food restarunt but I also do gormet cooking. Takes a whiel to learn and many many many many unfortunate mistakes but cooking isn't as hard as say rocket science.
Anecdote: One time I was making a batch of scalloped potatoes, I decided to add a bit of oregano. The cap came off and I added a bit too much. I removed what I could but the mixture already absorbed the oraganos flavor. Thus my scallop potatoes tasted like tree bark. I've gotten better.
Slashdot Mirror
If we only had 1 eye, that would indeed be a problem. Fortunately, God designed us with two.
In which we have a blind spot. There is a certain Area in frotn of you for which you cannot see and your brain makes up. That is it fabricates somethign that shoudl go there and makes you believe you see it while you do not. There are ways to trick it and get soem illusionary effects. Also ours eyes are pretty inefficient compared to eagle eyes, or othe rpreditory eyes.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying so please forgive me for asking this. I am really trying to just understand your viewpoint. It seems to me that you just dismissed the entire Bible and what it says concerning salvation. Based on what you said, can't anyone who has faith in a false religion then expect to enter Heaven? I guess what I'm asking is, how do you know you have faith in the right thing?
I do not dismiss the entire bible but I am aware of it's origins and weaknesses. It cannot be divine because of it's "translations" have signifigant errors. For instance which Love does Jesus refer to when he says love thy neighbor? In aramaic there are 3 loves. How can it be divine and still mistranslate. And you cannot tell me of King James I of England was a kind and holy man who was benevolent and theological. He made the version to re-enforce his own power.
If all bibles are equal then why do they differ in content and translation. If all bibles are not equal how can you tell which one is divine. If you must find a median consensus between bibles to find the right one then it is clearly not divine.
The bible is a collection of holy writings. A guide to being and living as a christian with words of compfort (psalms) with advice and exemplars of behavior and a moral teaching. It is the back bone of christianity. I beleive they are inspired by god and contain gods words but written by human hands. We have no other garentee of salvation but by our faith in God. I read it, I hold it dear. But I do not fetishize it as some wings of chritianity do. I wholy aware that the current form and translation will always have weaknesses of launguage and that to know what is said you must take it in context and research the older launguages. As it is said Jesus was the only perfect human, thus each prophet and each diciple was only human and their writing, thogh divinly inspired, have their draw backs as well.
Why is our eye designed inefficiently?
Who said our eye is ineffecient?.
Because we have a large blindspot that can be designed around but hasn't. If the blood vesels are there to protect against UV (which it does not) then why have the central blood supply right in the middle casuing a blind spot.
Invention: spell-checkers
Necessity: Posting while at work.
A lot of devices have a master reset mode which is triggered by pressing 2 or more specific buttons. My belle express vu thing has this. I once forgot the pin to ummm unblock the adult channels and had to do this umm.. for my GF. yeah thats it.
If you are expecting everything to be perfect as it was when God first created it, then you are as those that Peter warned about that think that all things continue the same from creation. If you read the Bible, when God finished creating, he said it was very good. In other words, everything was perfect. But then Adam & Eve sinned and the earth was cursed. Now, instead of everything remaining perfect, the scientific law that things tend toward disorder kicked in and things (including people and animals) began to devolve into less-complex rather than evolve into more complex. (Why is it that evolutionists believe everything in the universe is subject to this except for living organisms? WHy do they believe living organisms start with the so-called simple single celled organisms - which really isn't so simple - and become more complex and more ordered?) That's why God did not prohibit close-relatives from marrying until the time of Moses. Prior to the time of Moses, genetic mutations had not accumulated enough to be a concern that offspring would be harmed by both parents having the same genetic mutation. But by the time of Moses, things had devolved enough, enough genetic mutations had occured that it was dangerous for close-relatives to have offspring together.
:
As with entropy things (systems more precisly get more complex) The longer a biological system persist the more complex it gets.
As for the appendix
Appendix the jurry is out on that one.
I tried greys anatomy, no mention of function, nature has no reports on it, neither does the NLM, and found no mention of function only in wikipedia.
You really should study the history of the Bible and the various translations. I suggest An Understandable History of the Bible as a good start.
If you do not believe the Bible is God's word, how do you know 100% for sure you are saved and will spend eternity in Heaven?
That my friend is faith. I worship him and obey him not to save myself but because I love him. And if like job I must suffer for this love so be it. And if I am never rewarded for my love of him then I still have my love of him.
The dog is still a dog, the bacteria is still bacteria
Dogs are nto the same. A st. Bernard cannot mate with a shitzu thus are actually a different species. A G-galactose->G-lactose bacteria is not pheno typically diffrent. thus we see evolution. Thus Creationists define their own narrow truths, You want a Cat to become a dog to show you but that would be proof of creationism. What then would it require for you to say it's evolution? Thats the problem there is nothing. You siimply defined your problem away. However the problem still stands. There is insurmountable proof the universe is old. And there is insumountable proof that Anomals evolve and redefining the problem has not removed this.
Quit simply you cannot defeate the evidence. Your attempts to seperate selection and evolution do not work. How is A documented gene line such as the dogs evolution from one gerneral form to several specialized forms not constitute evolution? They are phenotypical and genetically different and speciation has happened to many members of the gene line. Thats evolution.
I am not observing mitosis and calling it fetal alchohol syndrom I'm viewing selection and callign it evolution.
Also should my gene line ever differentiate enough to speciate then they might carry this common malaria resistance gene.
If God man man complete and perfect, why do we have a vestigual appendix? Why is our eye designed inefficiently?
Even Jesus said if we love him, we will keep his commandments.
I use the Bible for support because even God magnifies his word above even his own name
Keeping his word and worshiping the bible are two different issues. Jesus wrote no text. His word is not what in the bible, his paraphrased words are. And if they are divine and not divinly inspired then you must then go to their source and not read any interpretation because each interpretation has it's weakness. NIV to KJV to Catholic. If you believe that God told the Clerigy of the 6th centry to cannons the exact books in the bible then you should remain a catholic, because it is the catholic church which chose which books were made into the bible. If you do not then your claim the bible is divine cannot be true because it was put together by man. This is a paradox. If you think God told the clerigy then you should be catholic, since the catholics did that. If you do not then the work is a collation of human works inspired by God and hold no authority in this argument. The reformation was as political as it was theological thus it cannot be divine in inspiration.
I gave cunnilingus to one of my Gf's friends. My GF didn't seem to like it too much.
Just like people don't drive cars because there's so many models of car to chose from but only bus.
This is because the input for a car as essentially the same. There as much difference in control from a 2004 civic SI and 1998 Mustang GT as there is between windows XP and windows XP pro. Thats is very subtle differences.
Contrast this fromt he difference between XP and Solaris or GNOME. For now opensource is too conplicated for the majority of users. Hell XP is too but since they have a large base of users to draw help from and they are often required to use it. So they eventually aquire some skills. Thus they are the technically enept that will never adapt to a new OS since thier current one is just barely within their abilities to use. I work as tech support I know this.
I like open source projects. If I found one which I could contribute to I'd be more then happy. I both use and write little apps on a couple red hat machines. But I know the market. I know that a large amount of people can barely us XP or Mac OSX so going with a closed system with subscription might make them feel ebtter. because nwo theres someone to blame and a point of leverage. If you don't fix it I won't pay next month. As opposed to, if you don't fix it I won't buy your next $500 version 4 years form now.
What if somebody invents a brand new killer app, but you're still locked into a contract with your current PC vendor that doesn't include that killer app? Such would have been the case at the start of the consumer desktop video editing era. Because PCs are general-purpose, users could just install stripped-down video editing and effects software. With locked-down rental PCs, on the other hand, they would have to wait to re-up their PC leases before using such a killer app.
And for the vast majority of PC users they wouldn't feel any difference. Owing just a PC disbars me from using Mac video editing tools. It also disbars me from running Solaris (well previously).
For tom dick and harry all they woudl know is "wow thats cool. I wonder when they'll bring it to Sony Everythign station 6." You've seen it. You know it. People don't liek to wonder far so if they invented an app that gave 4 extra years to your life just by using it regularly, 80% of all humans being woudl not switch. We just happen to on slashdot, if such a device exsisted 80% of us would try to install linux on it and chain it togetehr in beowolf clusters.
When I say energy density I mean how much energy you can exstract. If the density is so low that the required land is more then you have available then i'd say thats good cause to say it isn't a solution. Wind is pretty low.
We do not see one kind of organism evolving into another kind of organism
This is a false arguement. You using your own definition of an event to prove another event has not happened. It's a logical fallacy. A circular argument.
A organism has in fact evolved to another. We have observed Dog changing into sub species of dogs and many are not interbreedable. We have seen BActeria change diatary habits which for bacteria is the very definition of a species. G-Galactose eating bacteria A becomes G-lactose eacting backertia B because of random mutations and a selection mechanism. I am myself an example as I hold Malaria resitant genes that confer some benifit (I can't get malaria) with some draw backs (1/4 of my bloodcells are cripples, I have a go through folic acid at an alarming rate and I can't run marathons). This gene stays in the populace because it provides a benifit. It is in fact a very common gene in Malaria affected Areas.
And no you cannot split the definition of Evolution to say "well yes that happened but it's not evolution". It is presicely what evolution is. I provided 3 examples of the top of my head. It occured in the past, it occurs now.
don't you realize that your arguments has so far been contentless and that you are using debating tricks and not addressing the facts? Your using logical falacies, redefinition of terms, straw man arguements, and a numerous other erronous tactics to try and convince me your right. But have offered nothing besides bibble passages from KJV which few branches of christianity use as proof.
My one counter example stands. The speed of light. the link you provided rationalizes why this would be so but does not give any sunstance to the argument. It accuses evolution of being build out of a card of houses then goes and starts heaping assumption on assumption. Evolution is a theory because A: it has re-enforcing examples and a consitant logic. and B makes accurate predictions of certain observed behavior.
As for Satan. Satan liek to obscure truth. He is the first and ultimate liar. Would he not want to obscure the elegance of Gods works and systems? If god engeneered something so beuatiful woudl he then hide it himself?
It's called repition of word, it's a good way to re-enforce a point and also I'm a logic nerd. So if I'm paying attention my statements are always 100% logically correct and re-enforce my point (note the qualification of this statement).
But my point stands. Large scale solar collectors or Large scale anything will tend to hurt the enviroment. For instance the bio diesel idea. You require a huge area that gets sunlight. Well having a large bio mas there and a large body of water will result on a grand change to the econology of the area. For solar, the parts to make them are pretty nasty and they have a finite usable life span. Imagine having to find a place for 100 tons of gallnium arsnide.
Friendlier takes some research to find. Is biodiesel friendlier? Is wind friendlier? Maybe, but you should do some comparison with nuclear. Don't just evaluate the toxicity and deadliness of the by product but also the ammount and the enviromental affects. for instance nuclear power raises the temperature of the surrounding area. Wind power disapates the winds kinetic energy and results in alter wind patterns. Solar power also heat up the local area and require a lot of space. Hydro wrecks the local area and occasionally leaks or bursts. Tidal power will anihhalte fish and alter the local currents...
There are some suggestions I think are great. Every house should be roofed with solar panels and thye government shoudl subsidize this. Every home should be as efficient as possible, the government shoudl subsidize this. Every person shoudl try an turn off anythign they don't use. Recycling is a good idea, package reduction is better, and buying with no packagin where we can is best.
I'm am an enviromentalist but I know that ideal solutions are never ideal (repitition again). And there there are side effects, and problems with energy density.
Can we replace traditional sources of power with wind/solar: no.
They won't provide enough energy to account for our needs.
Can we usilize them to augment: yes.
Any reduction on our oil dependency is good.
But nuclear is as about as good as we can think of. A modern reactor has a high energy potential with a comparativly lower per KWH damage ratio and the disposal is an issue but is so for all technologies. If nuclear the best choice? Maybe maybe not. But it sure beats oil and coal.
Evolution is a religion.
By this logic, Thermo dynamics is a religion. As is quantum physics, integral math, and a whole host of other things. Their all theories that take a set of asumptions and cannot be un-equivically disproved however they make some accurate predictions and thus are used as the basis for further theories.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a alternative theory with theological over tones and little proof. they are not equivilent.
I also do gormet cooking. (typo noted)
No you don't.
Now how do you qualift that?
gourmet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gr-m, grm)
n.
A connoisseur of fine food and drink.
I cook some very nice dishes, Scallops wrapped with bacon, Nice look chocolate deserts with liquer. Lots of interetsing and tasty dishes just a little left of what everyone else does. I'd think I qualify.
does this coming "appliance era" spell the end of affordable general-purpose PC hardware for residential use?
No. Just the end to warez and code your own adventures. For the vast majority of people their vision for computer use would be more comforting. The human mind ussually isn't goot at more then 5 or 6 choices. When you have literally dozens of choices to be made, most people will not sign on no matte rhwo attractive you make all the choices. thus OSS and Free and in beer software won't be for consumers and never was. Right now, Windows XP pro costs more then the computer I install it on 60% of the time. Not a huge leap to make XP subscription and to giev away the computer.
I think you seriously overestimate the ability of people to get together and form any type of coherent and covert action. Even CIA and KGB aren't as good at it as you would require and Satan plays a different game. Evolution does not deny God. There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. You simply divided the subset of people who agree with you adn those who don't. Your subset is small, our subset is large. Evolution is theory which has a lot of emperical weight. Creationist theory does not. You have some serious rationalization and alteration of current scientific theory to accomadate you theory. Which is very bad science. You cannot assume all atronomers are wrong and that a small group of Christian ministry geeks know more then Nasa and all the University on astronomy and astro physics. You can assume theirs some grand conspiracy to keep your point of view down, but as with all conspiracies, there isn't a sufficient insentive for so many people to work so hard against yoru point of view. Thus you are left to take it that your point of view may not be correct. The education system in the US is the most theologically influenced of any in the western world. Evolution isn't taught in a great many states, or taught as the flaky alternative to creationism. You are not the victim, you are the agressor in abotu half of the united states. In canada I went to a catholic school, they taught evolution. no problem. Only certain parts of the christian faith teach creationism. You have to accept that you are not some Defiant van gaurd of a christian faith. You are a statistical out lier dening a well supported theory. Like the flat earth society.
There is more diversity in your opponent then in your supportes, your claim requires a fairly large conspiracy of a vast amount of very different people all with the purpose of refuting God however, Very few are refuting god.
Microevolution
It's a term introduced by creationists. To me, it's simply selection and speciation. to them is a "de-evolution". Selection and speciation are scientific terms to cover the definition of micro-evolution. Macro evolution is use to seperate the two since you cannot deny one. It's a linguistic trick. If you have to debate soemthing, and it has strong suport, split the issue into topics which can be better fought by your side. Like make a accomadation that yes in fct my comapny kills millions of people, but split the issue and say "it was their choice".
Macro-evolution isn't anything more then the re-application of micro evolution, thus it's another name for evolution since it's simply the iteration of selection/mutation and they introduce it to try and seperate the issue. The one they cannot deny and the one they wish to deny. Notice many of the debatign tricks used in the arguement of creationsist, liek confusing the subject with special terms. Making great leaps of logic saying Evolution is not disporvable therefore invalid. Using the idea of "Consperacies" to re-enforce their point and minimize evidence that are couter examples to their point. Using emotional arguements with no proof. Even look in my own post log and see some of the responses to my arguements. Also thy use sources from their own side as reliable sources while at the same tiem belittling sources from the other side.
I use some of the same tricks. But the evidence is on my side. The very counter example of "light and the universe" is enough to defeat most simpel creationists arguments while a more sophisticated creationist arguement doesn't agree with the reason why creationism still exsist, namly fundementalism.
Hello?
What you are saying is that the effect is the same, not the cause.
No one argues (well, in this debate) that we aren't here.
The argument is about how we *got* here.
Evolution is the result of selection. Micro evolution is a silly misnomer for selection/mutation. Macro evolution is also a misnomer. neither term is ever used in academia except theology. The other point? I don't see how it relates to my post? Our current understanding of gravity is a refinement and alteration of newtons, his was a subset or special case of the more general case.
Please clarify your point?
All art is perception. All perception is biology. All biology is science. All science (except math) is empiricism. All empiricism is creative. All creativity is art.
Some broad connections there. Art is just perception is more. and perception isn't all biology. Do you mean the fact that by perceiving somethign I go through a biological proccess? what if my computer percives something? All sicence isn't just measurement. Sometimes it's gigantics leaps in logic.
Visual Basic is to Emeril as Perl is to Alton Brown
Does that make Jamie Oliver java?
The true art is making a french dish in a chinese kitchen with chinese ingredients. I've had to do that. God damn that wok gets hot fast. I had to make the white suace 4 time cuase the wok kept burning it.
I guess it boild down to this:
To make a really good omlette good science will suffice.
To make a really good omlette with qual eggs, faux graus, urchin eggs, and caviar takes artistry.
I'm a regular Joe, I picked up some equipment and well I run a restraunt :). A chinese food restarunt but I also do gormet cooking. Takes a whiel to learn and many many many many unfortunate mistakes but cooking isn't as hard as say rocket science.
Anecdote: One time I was making a batch of scalloped potatoes, I decided to add a bit of oregano. The cap came off and I added a bit too much. I removed what I could but the mixture already absorbed the oraganos flavor. Thus my scallop potatoes tasted like tree bark. I've gotten better.