You don't give us a hint about your campus, but I'm sure that they have some form of backup system. Tivoli Storage Manager is big, bulky, and contrary, but in the hands of a paranoid pessimist (like our campus's TSM admins), it handles huge amounts of data and handles multiple copies all over creation. The systems I admin (AIX, SAP, DB2) regularly push 2T a day directly to an 8 drive LTO-3 library, while others are backing up to the 12 drive IBM "Jaguar" library in a different part of campus.
Check out main campus IT. At worse, you might have to buy them some LTO tapes or pay a per-meg fee, but you'll probably find a well-designed system that you don't have to maintain.
(If you do use TSM with Macs, go to the 6.1 client. it's a LOT better than 5.3 on the Mac. Also, run the first backup by hand. The client has memory consumption issues sometimes on the first backup.)
Just as a very quick example, look at the design of the human eye... upside down, backwards, and with a huge blind spot caused by a cable of optic nerves. If it came about through incremental changes driven by selection, this is easy to understand. If it was created by a designer who guided the process, then the designer was an incompetent.
"Old words". Good grief, at least come up with an interesting reason why ID isn't true.
The image is upside-down and backwards because that's the way lenses work. Get a refracting telescope out without a correcting prism and the image is the same way. "I canna change the laws of physics, Captain."
The surface-mounted optic nerve does have a function: light suppression. Deep-sea, low-light creatures have optic nerves behind the retina. Their eyes cannot deal with the flood of light caused by normal sunlight. Optic nerves on the surface of the retina absorb light that would otherwise flood the cones and rods without causing resolution loss or image distortion.
The flaw of most "inelegant design" arguments is that they usually are arguments from incomplete information. The appendix was believed to be proof of both inelegant design and evolution, but it's part of our immune system's defenses against the contents of our colon.
Technically, ID doesn't require a perfect Designer, just a Designer. If we're just the science project of some hung-over Masters student from Beta Centauri 4, that's still ID.
It's currently possible to pressurize/treat waste chicken parts or green waste and produce a reasonable facsimile of crude oil in hours or days.
If the abiotic oil people are correct, or if the process of crude oil & coal creation doesn't require millions of years, then Flood geology is equivalent to non-Flood geology. Rather than saying "There was ocean here for a while, and ocean there for a while, and...", it says "there was ocean EVERYWHERE for a while".
You have created a straw man here. There is no need for "Flood geology" to be better. All a young-Earth geologist need do is explain it as well. Then you get down to arguing about axioms...
Actually, SCO's purchase of Xenix is why Microsoft doesn't have a UNIX. SCO included a "no-UNIX" non-compete clause that forbids Microsoft from releasing a UNIX. Why do you REALLY think they wrote NT from scratch?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't give us a hint about your campus, but I'm sure that they have some form of backup system. Tivoli Storage Manager is big, bulky, and contrary, but in the hands of a paranoid pessimist (like our campus's TSM admins), it handles huge amounts of data and handles multiple copies all over creation. The systems I admin (AIX, SAP, DB2) regularly push 2T a day directly to an 8 drive LTO-3 library, while others are backing up to the 12 drive IBM "Jaguar" library in a different part of campus.
Check out main campus IT. At worse, you might have to buy them some LTO tapes or pay a per-meg fee, but you'll probably find a well-designed system that you don't have to maintain.
(If you do use TSM with Macs, go to the 6.1 client. it's a LOT better than 5.3 on the Mac. Also, run the first backup by hand. The client has memory consumption issues sometimes on the first backup.)
Just as a very quick example, look at the design of the human eye... upside down, backwards, and with a huge blind spot caused by a cable of optic nerves. If it came about through incremental changes driven by selection, this is easy to understand. If it was created by a designer who guided the process, then the designer was an incompetent.
"Old words". Good grief, at least come up with an interesting reason why ID isn't true.The image is upside-down and backwards because that's the way lenses work. Get a refracting telescope out without a correcting prism and the image is the same way. "I canna change the laws of physics, Captain."
The surface-mounted optic nerve does have a function: light suppression. Deep-sea, low-light creatures have optic nerves behind the retina. Their eyes cannot deal with the flood of light caused by normal sunlight. Optic nerves on the surface of the retina absorb light that would otherwise flood the cones and rods without causing resolution loss or image distortion.
The flaw of most "inelegant design" arguments is that they usually are arguments from incomplete information. The appendix was believed to be proof of both inelegant design and evolution, but it's part of our immune system's defenses against the contents of our colon.
Technically, ID doesn't require a perfect Designer, just a Designer. If we're just the science project of some hung-over Masters student from Beta Centauri 4, that's still ID.
It's currently possible to pressurize/treat waste chicken parts or green waste and produce a reasonable facsimile of crude oil in hours or days.
If the abiotic oil people are correct, or if the process of crude oil & coal creation doesn't require millions of years, then Flood geology is equivalent to non-Flood geology. Rather than saying "There was ocean here for a while, and ocean there for a while, and...", it says "there was ocean EVERYWHERE for a while".
You have created a straw man here. There is no need for "Flood geology" to be better. All a young-Earth geologist need do is explain it as well. Then you get down to arguing about axioms...
Actually, SCO's purchase of Xenix is why Microsoft doesn't have a UNIX. SCO included a "no-UNIX" non-compete clause that forbids Microsoft from releasing a UNIX. Why do you REALLY think they wrote NT from scratch?