Thank you for that response. That was an excellent reponse to my last posting and I appreciate your thoughtful answers, seriously. The reason why I lump the two fields together, cosmology and the theory of evolution from biology, is because in my mind it's and all or nothing situation. I either believe God is responsible for how the universe began and also how it is in its current complex state. If I chose not to believe in God (whom I obviously believe in which is my bias), then I'd want an explanation for the whole gammit. I'd like to know if God didn't start it and time is infinite, how is time the supreme force in the universe then? How did the whole concept of "being" even come to be? Without God there is a line of reasoning that keeps going further and further back into time without an end explanation necessarily. When chosing between the two: time being infinite or God being infinite, I'd chose God any day. A supreme being who is outside of time or an unconscious force that has only one direction, forward, and cannot do anything else. All powerful, versus one task. It's not a hard decision for me. But that's not the only reason why I believe in God...the whole history of mankind serves as a testimony as to why I believe in God. If I may ask, are you a professional biologist? Meaning, is that what your college degree is in and what you do on a daily basis?
You keep on insisting that I do not understand the theory of evolution. Though I don't pretend to know it all, I do claim to understand a good portion of it. So please do not think that I ignorantly decide that evolution is false. And I am not talking about micro-evolution either, I believe that is a fact and it occurs every second of everyday. I however, do not believe in the Big Bang or the new Sheets Theory nor that the entire universe was formed by either. I do not believe that all of the species on this earth formed from inorganic chemicals.
I read over the world-of-dawkins and I still say that Behe's ideas are sound and not far fetched. How could he go to his peers when they all seem to share your views about evolution? They would have laughed him out of a job. That website gets more specific than most pro-evolution websites that I've read over the years, but it's still too general. How do you propose the universe began? If you primarily believe in the Big Bang, where did all of the infinitly dense matter in a single point come from? And what did it expand into if everything was inside that dense point? I believe and trust in good science, but come on...my dog could have written a better story. And please try and answer all of my questions and points.
So you're saying Dr. Behe is not a real biologist? And who are you then? Are you one of the world's leading biologists with tens of published documents and books on the subject? Do you have a New York Times bestseller? I mean anyone can say "look at a real biologist", and "if you actually understood it [evolution]." This is exactly the same type of hype that has given evolution the appearance of any kind of credibility. And what's so hard about admitting that there is a creator? It is far easier to say than to say evolution "created" all that exists...plus it's far self-evident.
Because if you would read Dr. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, you would realize that parts of the cell, and therefore the cell itself, are irreducibly complex - meaning all or nothing. Parts of the cell must form all at once (aka by a creator) or not at all. Like an example given by Dr. Behe, a mouse trap - is irreducibly complex. Take away any part of the device, and the device as a whole fails to operate at all. And using natural selection itself, such a thing would die off because it would be completely worthless. Yeah it's really easy to say given billions and trillions of years anything could happen. But it's more likely for my black labrador to learn to use a writing utensil and write a 1500 page novel that sells more copies than Charles Dickens ever did. Do some basic probability calculations and you'll see just how impossible evolution is.
New species forming (not natural selection, variation over time, etc...) does not, has not and never will exist. Life at the smallest level (the cell) is far too complex and interdependent to have evolved. Instead, the cell points more to an intelligent designer. *Sigh, just another example of a liberal media blowing the minority view up until the majority believes it.
I completely agree with you. I find myself hindered when I use Windows XP at work. For me, Gnome on Linux is amazing. I've been using Linux for 4.5 years or so and it's never once completely frozen on me. For Windows...hmm...1, 2, 3,... dangit...I lost count.
Not everyone can read though. And you may argue that perhaps people who cannot read should not be using a computer. Maybe so...but what about the visually impaired? Icons are a lot more visible than smaller text. And one couldn't miss a spinning icon or the like.
He does know what he's talking about actually. Though it would be an enormous programming task, it could be done in much of the same way as Apple porting their system to BSD. With the right amount of money and semi-knowledgable programmers, anything is possible. But that doesn't mean this will happen. The day this happens is the day Bill Gates becomes the world's poorest man instead of the world's richest man.
Unforunately I agree with you. But that doesn't mean I have to like it!:) I for one will always try and "evangelize" this idea. It's the only way to save our nation - a people who are dumber than the people who lead the nation will not remain great for very long.
This article does not provide very much scientific proof about the estimated age of the universe. If this is a revolutionary study, why not provide an abstract (or a link to an abstract) of the research report? That way, instead of the general public just believing the "almighty scientists," they can look over the research themselves and come to their own conclusion pertaining to the accuracy of the conclusions. I'm tired of all of this hype in the media lately...scientific and political. Let's get back to the facts people.
This is highly far-fetched. You are a paranoid individual and the tone of your article makes me fear for my own country...not because of some socialist government takeover, but because of your naivete as to how things work. There is a lot of good free software available in Windows too which would "enable" the Chinese governments to accomplish the sames things you mention. You need to wake up and have a reality check.
Re:More than two brands of ethics...
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 1
The only thing I don't get is why you call it the "Entity Fromerly Known as God?" Do you just believe in a surpreme deity but not exactly any as defined in the world's current religions? That's the type of God that my Bible professor believes in (I go to a state university, not a Christian private school).
You use good simple logic but you leave out half of the argument. Violating someone's physical rights isn't the only way to violate rights. There are many psycological rights that people hold that are violated by the porn industry. But I will not list what those are because several posts have already summed them up very well.
Re:More than two brands of ethics...
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 1
Very good argument...I like your logic. And thank you for clarifying that people are illogical, not God.:)
Re:Porn might indeed be harmful
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 1
You are a very open minded individual and I commend you for that. It is refreshing to see you say this.
Dude, just give it a rest. No amount of prodding on your part is going to get them to see your points. They just see you as an offtopic troll now and will not listen. I am not saying I agree or disagree with your posts, but you're not getting anywhere and you're getting really mad over this when you don't have to be. If.NET isn't anymore secure than the next programming language, then I guess you'll be rather happy to stay with your current one and know that you didn't have to put the extra effort into learning a new language. As for myself who sees the benefits of the language (and it also landed me a nice job), I'll be using.NET.
You obviously don't get the point that this Mono initiative is Open Source..Net and C# are open standards now, Microsoft released it out into the wild. I am not sure if Microsoft hired this guy just to create C# or whether he works as MS full-time, but the creator of Turbo Pascal and Delphi also created C#. It isn't a replacement for C/C++, but instead it serves it's own purpose, and quite well I might add. It is very easy and intuitive to base business components on the.Net structure because that's what it was designed to do from the ground up. I might be a little more leary if Microsoft had never opened up the language to the public to use kind of like Sun with Java. Be open minded about it and take a look at mono, I think you'll be very surprised.
Actually it was meant to be anti-FUD. And I mistyped...I meant own, not one. Linux is very diverse...I am a huge supporter and loyal user of it for just about everything. But if you're so scared of taking a couple of critiques, then you go elsewhere...critiques make great for great software.
I happen to like this type of news very much so. An in terms of enterprise acceptance, it's important to hear other stories of adoption and success with the Linux OS.
If they switched from Windows- or Mac-based machines, then this would be legit. Other than that it's meaningless in the sense of Linux is Taking Over.
Mac OS X is more Unix than Linux is...Linux is only a clone of Unix functionality and style. But jump forward in time to today and Linux is very much doing its one thing - blazing new trails in speed, stability, and of course acceptance of a free OS in the enterprise sector of business.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for that response. That was an excellent reponse to my last posting and I appreciate your thoughtful answers, seriously. The reason why I lump the two fields together, cosmology and the theory of evolution from biology, is because in my mind it's and all or nothing situation. I either believe God is responsible for how the universe began and also how it is in its current complex state. If I chose not to believe in God (whom I obviously believe in which is my bias), then I'd want an explanation for the whole gammit. I'd like to know if God didn't start it and time is infinite, how is time the supreme force in the universe then? How did the whole concept of "being" even come to be? Without God there is a line of reasoning that keeps going further and further back into time without an end explanation necessarily. When chosing between the two: time being infinite or God being infinite, I'd chose God any day. A supreme being who is outside of time or an unconscious force that has only one direction, forward, and cannot do anything else. All powerful, versus one task. It's not a hard decision for me. But that's not the only reason why I believe in God...the whole history of mankind serves as a testimony as to why I believe in God. If I may ask, are you a professional biologist? Meaning, is that what your college degree is in and what you do on a daily basis?
You keep on insisting that I do not understand the theory of evolution. Though I don't pretend to know it all, I do claim to understand a good portion of it. So please do not think that I ignorantly decide that evolution is false. And I am not talking about micro-evolution either, I believe that is a fact and it occurs every second of everyday. I however, do not believe in the Big Bang or the new Sheets Theory nor that the entire universe was formed by either. I do not believe that all of the species on this earth formed from inorganic chemicals.
I read over the world-of-dawkins and I still say that Behe's ideas are sound and not far fetched. How could he go to his peers when they all seem to share your views about evolution? They would have laughed him out of a job. That website gets more specific than most pro-evolution websites that I've read over the years, but it's still too general. How do you propose the universe began? If you primarily believe in the Big Bang, where did all of the infinitly dense matter in a single point come from? And what did it expand into if everything was inside that dense point? I believe and trust in good science, but come on...my dog could have written a better story. And please try and answer all of my questions and points.
So you're saying Dr. Behe is not a real biologist? And who are you then? Are you one of the world's leading biologists with tens of published documents and books on the subject? Do you have a New York Times bestseller? I mean anyone can say "look at a real biologist", and "if you actually understood it [evolution]." This is exactly the same type of hype that has given evolution the appearance of any kind of credibility. And what's so hard about admitting that there is a creator? It is far easier to say than to say evolution "created" all that exists...plus it's far self-evident.
Because if you would read Dr. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, you would realize that parts of the cell, and therefore the cell itself, are irreducibly complex - meaning all or nothing. Parts of the cell must form all at once (aka by a creator) or not at all. Like an example given by Dr. Behe, a mouse trap - is irreducibly complex. Take away any part of the device, and the device as a whole fails to operate at all. And using natural selection itself, such a thing would die off because it would be completely worthless. Yeah it's really easy to say given billions and trillions of years anything could happen. But it's more likely for my black labrador to learn to use a writing utensil and write a 1500 page novel that sells more copies than Charles Dickens ever did. Do some basic probability calculations and you'll see just how impossible evolution is.
New species forming (not natural selection, variation over time, etc...) does not, has not and never will exist. Life at the smallest level (the cell) is far too complex and interdependent to have evolved. Instead, the cell points more to an intelligent designer. *Sigh, just another example of a liberal media blowing the minority view up until the majority believes it.
:)
By the way, I like your end quote about Iraq.
Sickness...where is your mind?
Obviously you haven't seen Lord of The Rings? It's a battle from the second book/film.
This is pretty cool stuff...would this kind of be like the HTML of TV? :)
This logo is amazing. I think slashdot should change the gnome one to this.
I completely agree with you. I find myself hindered when I use Windows XP at work. For me, Gnome on Linux is amazing. I've been using Linux for 4.5 years or so and it's never once completely frozen on me. For Windows...hmm...1, 2, 3, ... dangit...I lost count.
Not everyone can read though. And you may argue that perhaps people who cannot read should not be using a computer. Maybe so...but what about the visually impaired? Icons are a lot more visible than smaller text. And one couldn't miss a spinning icon or the like.
hehe, good one! Al Gore, what an excuse for a politician...or wait...maybe he is a good politician and there-in lies my point! ;)
He does know what he's talking about actually. Though it would be an enormous programming task, it could be done in much of the same way as Apple porting their system to BSD. With the right amount of money and semi-knowledgable programmers, anything is possible. But that doesn't mean this will happen. The day this happens is the day Bill Gates becomes the world's poorest man instead of the world's richest man.
Unforunately I agree with you. But that doesn't mean I have to like it! :) I for one will always try and "evangelize" this idea. It's the only way to save our nation - a people who are dumber than the people who lead the nation will not remain great for very long.
This article does not provide very much scientific proof about the estimated age of the universe. If this is a revolutionary study, why not provide an abstract (or a link to an abstract) of the research report? That way, instead of the general public just believing the "almighty scientists," they can look over the research themselves and come to their own conclusion pertaining to the accuracy of the conclusions. I'm tired of all of this hype in the media lately...scientific and political. Let's get back to the facts people.
This is highly far-fetched. You are a paranoid individual and the tone of your article makes me fear for my own country...not because of some socialist government takeover, but because of your naivete as to how things work. There is a lot of good free software available in Windows too which would "enable" the Chinese governments to accomplish the sames things you mention. You need to wake up and have a reality check.
The only thing I don't get is why you call it the "Entity Fromerly Known as God?" Do you just believe in a surpreme deity but not exactly any as defined in the world's current religions? That's the type of God that my Bible professor believes in (I go to a state university, not a Christian private school).
You use good simple logic but you leave out half of the argument. Violating someone's physical rights isn't the only way to violate rights. There are many psycological rights that people hold that are violated by the porn industry. But I will not list what those are because several posts have already summed them up very well.
Very good argument...I like your logic. And thank you for clarifying that people are illogical, not God. :)
You are a very open minded individual and I commend you for that. It is refreshing to see you say this.
Dude, just give it a rest. No amount of prodding on your part is going to get them to see your points. They just see you as an offtopic troll now and will not listen. I am not saying I agree or disagree with your posts, but you're not getting anywhere and you're getting really mad over this when you don't have to be. If .NET isn't anymore secure than the next programming language, then I guess you'll be rather happy to stay with your current one and know that you didn't have to put the extra effort into learning a new language. As for myself who sees the benefits of the language (and it also landed me a nice job), I'll be using .NET.
You obviously don't get the point that this Mono initiative is Open Source. .Net and C# are open standards now, Microsoft released it out into the wild. I am not sure if Microsoft hired this guy just to create C# or whether he works as MS full-time, but the creator of Turbo Pascal and Delphi also created C#. It isn't a replacement for C/C++, but instead it serves it's own purpose, and quite well I might add. It is very easy and intuitive to base business components on the .Net structure because that's what it was designed to do from the ground up. I might be a little more leary if Microsoft had never opened up the language to the public to use kind of like Sun with Java. Be open minded about it and take a look at mono, I think you'll be very surprised.
Actually it was meant to be anti-FUD. And I mistyped...I meant own, not one. Linux is very diverse...I am a huge supporter and loyal user of it for just about everything. But if you're so scared of taking a couple of critiques, then you go elsewhere...critiques make great for great software.
I happen to like this type of news very much so. An in terms of enterprise acceptance, it's important to hear other stories of adoption and success with the Linux OS.
If they switched from Windows- or Mac-based machines, then this would be legit. Other than that it's meaningless in the sense of Linux is Taking Over.
Mac OS X is more Unix than Linux is...Linux is only a clone of Unix functionality and style. But jump forward in time to today and Linux is very much doing its one thing - blazing new trails in speed, stability, and of course acceptance of a free OS in the enterprise sector of business.