As my grandfather who was a doctor said, "Doctors, mechanics and others like these all benefit from the misfortunes of others". Today I just spent 3 1/2 hours updating security patches on a group of machines in an office for office 2000. The people there are annoyed about all the patches, and we joked about it being "this months security update". Now there's this, and I'm going to be called in again to update their machines. On one hand it's irritating, on the other hand it gives me more work, which I need at the moment.
A few of them are curious about Linux, and I keep it in their mind - not telling them that it will solve all their problems, but that in the near future it may be beneficial for them to consider it. I let them know an alternative is there, and they are positive, no knee-jerk reactions. I'm honest to them about it's advantages and disadvantages - where it will help them and where it will be a challenge. When the time is ripe they will change over - it is inevitable. This won't eliminate the need for security patches, but I hope through the use of thin clients only one or two machines will ever need updating.
I really like the idea of OEone's desktop. Combining with OpenOffice seems like an excellent idea - both projects should benefit from each other reviewing their products.
Doesn't matter about segfaults - these will get fixed as time passes and as the two projects co-operate. Alternatively submit bug reports yourself.
Why do you say in your.sig about moderators modding based on posts not users?
I have no idea how modding works. Is it done by selected people, or people with high karma? If it's the latter, then how would they all not mod based on a user? presumably only one or two would bias against a person?
I like the way Tim O'Reilly takes great pains to explain that 15 results that are given voluntarily no way represents a sample set of the population, and I fully agree.
But despite Tim O'Reilly's warnings, he still says: In other words, switchers appear to be adopting Mac OS X at twice the rate of Mac OS 9 users. Linux users, and Windows users who also use Linux or another Unix, appear to be the most common switchers."
So while I don't disagree that it is possible that a greater number are coming from switchers than upgrades, I do think Tim should stick to his own warning - 15 responses is woefully inadequate for any representation.
I am hoping for my next computer to get a Mac with OSX. Thanks to Linux I've grown to know and love Unix.
Problem is, I need my windows partition for games. With a Mac OSX machine I could have a complete Unix environment, and still play most of the popular games. I don't think I'd be willing to give up Linux, but I'd certainly be happy having both OS's running on the same computer.
Linux has more than just stability. I love the whole philosophy behind it as many others do, and while Apple is closer than Microsoft, it's still not as good as Linux.
"In an interview on Linux and Main, Rasterman, the founder of the Enlightenment window manager stated that he thought GNU/Linux on the desktop has no future. He certainly is not alone in saying this, yet we also have seen a number of impressive GNU/Linux desktop deployments in the last year. What is your take this?"
Do you get the feeling that people missed the point of why Rasterman and others (such as myself) say the Linux desktop has no future?
I am very confident that Linux will enjoy success on the desktop, enough perhaps to eliminate the Microsoft monopoly. But the question is not if the Linux desktop is dead - it's whether the desktop itself is dead.
I have posted about this once before. Embedded devices will integrate computing into the house. Average people don't like computers, they just use them. When they can do all computer related tasks through devices that integrate seamlessly into their life, the computer and the desktop will die.
Consider also a project like the OEone desktop - the beginning of blurring the line between oS. These are all signs of a new future of computing. Embedded devices are the future, not the desktop. So winning the desktop is like winning a battle, but not the war.
that's pretty bad, I've heard bad reports of Telstra compared to Optus cable here. Good luck, I hope that wireless networks help this problem: http://www.wireless.org.au/
What about optus cable? Same 3gb limit but it seems to be cheaper.
I am planning on getting cable. Problem is, my dad wants Telstra since it's cable runs underground but Optus is above ground. Telstra is more expensive though, with no apparent advantage for the higher price. I'm checking out that whirpool weblink you advertised, thanks.
If you know of any other good alternatives for internet that are cost effective for residential use, and faster than dial-up then I'd be glad to hear, since I am considering a change now.
This could be very good news for me. At our church we have 5 PC's (plus another two in an office that's not directly the church's organisation). I've been trying to push Linux as the standard desktop, but am not getting far. The guy who makes the final decision works for Telstra. I really hope Telstra makes the switch - I suspect I will experience a lot less opposition if he starts using it at work. The main reason why he doesn't want to at the moment is because volunteers may use the computers on the reception, and wants them to be able to put experience with Microsoft products on their resume.
Apart from that, my demonstrations of Linux to him and another member of the church has nothing less than impressed them. The thin client option is extremely desirable in our church where money is an issue. At the moment if our church wants to add new machines we have to buy new hardware and another new license for windows and office. With the thin clients I can grab an old pentium 133 or so, plug it in, add it's MAC to the dhcp server and we're away. No license issues.
And I agree with you 100% - if people start using it at work they will see no reason to use it at home, especially since it will cost them $400+ (AUS) minimum to get outfitted with Microsoft software for a new machine. Unfamiliarity is one of the great fears. And those who think they know a little about computers don't want to feel like technology has left them behind - and Linux may give them that feel even if it is totally inaccurate.
I agree, this is not much of a surprise discovery. I mean, which of us didn't think there would be gene(s) that controlled our ability to talk? It wasn't a question of whether they exist, but where they are.
It seems that a lot of the problem with speech is also in the mind. Example, teaching an ape to talk or communicate - put it in the wild and it's friends do not start to learn to communicate in a more advanced form. The language is lost on that monkey. So even if they had the ability to speak, it is highly unlikely that they would develop a complex language. Their mind is not ready.
In the same train of thought, if humans were unable to speak, then given our current bodies we would find other ways to communicate - sign language, written words, etc. Having a mutation that enables speech does not guaruntee anything.
So I agree with the article, that "many other genetic changes would likely be necessary to produce a talking animal, and several said they doubted anything of the sort would ever be possible, let alone desirable."
Call me a sucker, I just couldn't resist. But only briefly, so I can set the record straight.
You again display your great talent for missing the point. It's creationists who offer the exponential population growth argument, not me.
I understood what you were saying. Someone said that if light had decreased at a constant rate we'd beat it on our push bikes. I merely pointed out that we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the decrease rate is, and it could be exponential. I have no idea what it actually is, but I was pointing out that fact to the original poster. I wasn't saying it IS exponential, I was just giving that as one of many numerous explanations. His idiotic comments were an issue for both evolutionists and creationists if a decrease in the speed of light is true.
Should I be so lucky!
See above, I'm a sucker.
Actually, all we have is your assertion that the article on talkorigins.org is out of date. The fact is that it is still the view held by scientists, however much creationist Web sites may rant against it.
Incorrect. The original article was found on the internet and was truely published as the footnote on the website said. It was published in 1997, whereas all your references were 1996 or earlier. This is a problem, because the new discovery occurred in 1997. The article was written by an evolutionist, so as to avoid accusations of bias or some other unfair accusal.
Who should I believe? You or the scientists, you or the scientists... tough decision, after seeing your brilliant performances on Slashdot.
Look, I still fail to see the problem. What is the issue at hand? Is it:
a) There is no way the world population could reach 6billion in the 4500 years since the flood
or
b) There is no way the world population could be as low as 6billion if it grew from the 4500 years since the flood?
I'm sure it's not the second, since that would pose problems for evolution if we accepted it's assumption.
So the first point must be the issue - that the population could not reach 6billion in 4500 years. Obviously you cannot create a formula and say this is what the population must have been at these times. Doing the formula is merely saying "Given the most conservative values, would there be enough time for the population to reach 6 billion?". Of course, it comes up with ridiculous estimates of 17 people at the construction of pyramids, etc...but that is because it is a conservative estimate to demonstrate that 6billion people in 4500 years is by no means unfeasable. If we increase the growth rate, and assume that wars and famine contributed to the decline of population at certain points, then it quite easily explains the needed population at different time periods.
Now assuming a constant growth rate of 1%, the estimated growth rate of the world in 2015 (it's currently about 1.5%, it was higher), the world's population today after 4500 years would be:
223,497,000,000,000,000,000
Now of course coming up with a steady formula has the problems you listed above, that there are too low populations at one end, and too high at the other. But you are forgetting a few factors:
* Famine, disease, drought, flood - these work to reduce population
* Culture, religion - this can work to give population booms, or to have a society with very few children (western society tends to have less than eastern countries)
* War - this works to reduce numbers. The Bible records many wars.
Because of these factors it is impossible to come up with accurate population estimates for any particular period of time. But one thing we know for sure: It is completely reasonable to assume that the population could have increased from 8 people to 6billion in just 4500 years. So such a statement neither affirms nor denies evolution or creation. It is not relevant, it is not an issue. I'm tempted to explain in more detail, but I'm sure any lurkers will understand, and as you will see below I've given up on you.
Yes, that pretty well describes the creationist attitude toward doing real science. Any time they go past the handwaving and offer some actual numbers they are immediately shown to be wrong.
Shut the fuck up with these pathetic arguments! How in the bloody hell is ANY person supposed to take an evolutionist seriously when they resort to personal insults all the time? I could easily take hits at all the idiotic arguments, pathetic attempts at understanding, and more that I've seen, but I have tried in the past to remain respectable. I hate statements that cannot be argued against, such as those springing from ignorance and stubborness. I will discuss with people who don't resort to such insults, but you are not one of them, Black Parrot. I've encountered you before, quoting out of date articles (mtDNA ring a bell?). So I don't think I shall respond to any of your posts anymore. And just remember why - not because of your 'superior' arguing skills, or because I was 'blinded' by your light of logic - but because you resorted to petty insults, and do exactly what you complain creationists do, hypocrite. So just remember why, and don't confuse it.
Like everyone else is saying, this article is well worth the read.
I am working to start up a business involved with computer systems and security - both on a software/hardware level, and also general building security. This has given me some great inights, and I'll certainly look to read more of his works.
It is interesting, he has confirmed something that I have considered an immutable law - that no matter how failsafe a system is, it will always fail. This is proven again and again throughout history, and there is no reason for us to expect it to stop. There is no perfect government, no completely secure castle, no perfect human - failure WILL occur, so plan for it.
This article serves also as a good reminder to get back to reality - there is a digital world, but it exists in a real world. Security cannot be automated, and never will be. When a new technology emerges so will the ability to defeat it. We must remember the human factor in everything.
You continue to miss the point. I'm not wasting my time anymore. Anyone with half a brain should have seen what I meant, so I don't need to worry about lurkers misunderstanding what I was saying.
I somehow knew that someone would make this comment. The younger the sample, within 5000 years, the more accurate the result can be. The further back you go the wider the variation of the date. It doesn't matter how long C14 is uesful for, my point still stands. This is nitpicking.
I used to enjoy these conversations. I don't anymore. I get tired of explaining things I've explained a thousand times before, correcting misunderstandings, and generally repeating myself.
1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Galapagos island by Charles Darwin. Read his "The Orgin of the Species" see the finches.
False. The evolution that Charles Darwin observed in the Galapagos was a form of microevolution, perfectly consistent with the creationist model. A lot of the criticism of the creationist model springs from a misunderstanding of it I think.
Microevolution: variation within a species from already present genetic information. Observable, verifiable.
Macroevolution: variation within a species through genetic mutation that eventually leads to a new species. Not observable, unverifiable. Processes today seem to indicate this is impossible.
Now if you had followed the link for each of the summary 20 questions, this would have been explained for you. These 20 questions are a summary, not the argument themselves. You are meant to follow the links to discover, in depth, what the problem is. Consider a parent bear who has the genes for brown fur and white fur. This code was passed on for a number of generations - as long as the bears have been around. The child inherits white fur from both parents. Natural selection makes this child more likely to survive in a snowy environment than any of it's brothers with brown fur. It was not a genetic mutation that gave this white fur - it was simply inherited from it's parents. This is microevolution which a creationist model predicts. What evolution predicts is that new mutations will occur often enough to bring useful changes - skin color changes, different beak sizes, etc, without a negative change travelling hand in hand. Unfortunately, for evolution, that is not what observation shows. I hope you understood. Either way read the link that was with the question please. You have not answered the problem posed by Walt Brown.
What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?BR>
Selection of advantagous traits.
No, you answered what happens after the traits are created. The question is what mechanism produces the new complexity, the new traits. Again, read the actual in-depth discussion, not just the summary.
If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition?
An organ does not have to be a vital organ to start out with. It can be an intresting oddity before it became important. Take a look at the heart. Before the heart there was an open circulatory system, the organs would just float within a fluid and recieve the nutriants as fast as they can defuse. When through chance something started moving the fluid that creature would be better able to survive, maybe more efficent. Using the theory of evolution, its decendants would be better able to survive and would have a competative advantage.
Hang on. You say that there was no heart, then suddenly an organ appears that "started moving the fluid" - when the question is clearly about the period between not having the organ, and then the organ working. There is a period where the organ is totally useless, performs no function. Indeed, such an organ would be a hindrance and probably selected against.
If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
Why can it not be a bad wing, assisting in jumping before its a good wing?
What mutation could possibly turn a leg from being a good leg into a bad wing in one single step? The problem is evolution takes steps, and all the steps transitioning from a good leg to a bad wing make it useless, and natural selection would select against such a mutation. And not just nature, but also mates. How many humans today would be attracted to someone whose leg looked a bit like a wing, but did nothing useful? If you have the chance, read the comic on the top of page 226 of The Dilbert Future. So again you are skipping steps. The problem was about the transition from a good leg to a bad wing, you missed that step and skipped strait to a bad wing.
2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
What kind of question is this? A rhetorical one?;) They are complicated.
You ignored the question in the link that the comment was related to - a question of probabilities. Again, by only reading the summary you missed the question.
How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Using the brain as an example, c. elegans a nematode worm has 302 neurons which govern its behaviour. It can avoid adverse conditions, engage in sexual reproductions etc. An amoba can do the same thing, with less exactly.
Thanks for the example, but how is that relevant? You point to already existing creatures which a creationist believes were created at the beginning. This isn't an answer at all. So to repeat the question - How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? The question is not an example of a transitional creature, but a question of the process of transitioning from a useless bulb into a working eye.
How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Molecular pumps are rather simple structures. A collection of them form a bacterial motor. Assumably a random collection of gradient pumps could self assemble and be reproducable which would all the single cell bacteria to move.
SIMPLE??!?!? Assumably they randomly collect to form a pump? Rubbish! You haven't explained anything, just given a fairy tale of what could have happened. And a poor answer at that. How would the pumps self assemble? How would they reproduce? How would they join together to form a motor? How do these motors form in the first place? Remember that they are useless for a number of steps until they work. Answer the question - How could a bacterial motor evolve? - and read the followup for the summary for an indepth description of the problem.
3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions.
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Please refer to these references for a quick discussion of the problems with this theory. Basically, while it fits the fossil record, it doesn't fit the way genetics works. Evolutionary jumps simply don't and can't happen. That's what the reference I have just given talks about.
4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches?
At the trunk are prokaryotes and virii. From there there is the eukaryotes and branching from there are the 3-7 kingdoms.
This question is asking where the trunk is in the fossil record. As quoted from the in-depth discussion and not the summary question: The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified,a and dispersed--worldwide. - and more.
For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
Nematode worms
Nematode worms are alive today. Do you have evidence that they were the ansestor of insects in the fossil record?
5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. The first cell was a myocel, lipid bi-layer. It collected the "stuff of life together". For the second part why are we talking about miracles if this is a scientific discussion? =)
Again, in reading the summary only you missed the core of the question. The answer is more than just a story - it's a question of being literally possible or not. The in-depth discussion has more details.
Miracle can mean remarkable event. Some things do happen that defy all odds. Walt Brown was describing that the step to get first living cell is even more impossible than the chance of getting a bacteria to evolve to a man.
How could that first cell reproduce?
They probably didn't. It probably took billions of years before something came around that did. The other cells simply ceased to be after the enviornment ripped them apart. It was only when they started to reproduce that life as we think about it really get going.
Do you realize the chances of even one single celled life forming? And now you are asking us to believe, that even though one cell forming is nigh impossible, that multiple cells formed and one of these many cells was 'lucky' enough to be able to reproduce?? Again check the in-depth information. This is asking us to believe the impossible.
Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
Why would it be a terrible problem? The first atmosphere probably was anaerobic (no oxygen), the first photosynthsis started pumping oxygen into the air but in stagnent pools that would not have mattered. There still exists anaerobic enviornments to this day. The first cell that could use this would gain much more energy 36 ATP vs 4 ATP from a glucose molecule. There is a significant advantage to get more energy from a unit of food.
Hmm, the in-depth description of the question doesn't seem to answer why the oxygen question is important. I have read it elsewhere on the website, I'll see if I can find it.... oh yes, it's here. This describes why the question of oxygen is important.
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Off the top of my head, snowflakes. They form an intricate crystaline structure which can be considered information. And all it takes is some cold and water.
I'm pretty sure that by "a strictly natural process that creates information" he was referring to genetic information, not just anything. Otherwise you could argue that destruction of a building creates information - the question becomes meaningless. You see this is one of the problems with genetic mutations - they only change already present information. It mutates a gene from being one thing to another. Processes that produce new information - like what would have been necessary for evolution - are unknown. Mutations bring about a disadvantage because of a loss of information. You gain one trait and lose another, and the new one is 99.99% harmful/harmless. Beneficial mutations are almost unknown. Check here and here for the problem of information.
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What reason could it not? Anyway, the Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids "The building blocks of life" could be formed from "non-life".
http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/9.htm l
Amino acids may naturally form, but proteins do not. Proteins tend to break down into amino acids, not the other way around. If you read the in-depth description and not just the summary, it talks about this. So answer the problems given and not just the summary.
What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
So? What about the 10000 books of information encoded on a DVD? A snow bank can contain huge complexity and most people would not argue that an "intellegent creator" made that.
The question is related to how this information came about. See the problems above and the links I posted, describing the problem with obtaining new information. A DVD has information intelligently designed, and snowflakes are pretty but they do not perform any mechanical function from their amazing shapes.
If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Yes, by definition if there was an intelligent signal it would come from an intellegent source. A complex signal does not require an intellegent source. There is a difference. DNA is undoubtably complex but is it an intellegent signal? Arguing that it is an intellegent signal because it came from an intellegent source, and that there is an intellegent source because of DNA's intellegent signal seems rather circular doesn't it?
Not at all. DNA is not just complex, it is completely meaningful. It all performs a function that is necessary for our existence. And this is true of information present in the whole spectrum of life. This meaningful information could not have come about by chance (see above comments). It seems logical to conclude that it had an intelligent origin. Imagine if we discovered a spherical device the size of a baseball. It could do an amazing number of things - change it's shape, endure amazing temperatures, communicate through vibrations with language. Inside it we discovered wires tinier than our scientists have been able to miniaturize, and circuitry of amazing complexity. We would conclude that this device was created by some race far in advance of our own. Life is the same - life is presumably the greatest things that could ever be created. The most intelligently designed, integral working machines in the universe. Infinitely more amazing than the example device I mentioned. Yet this complexity is the reason why you reject it as being created? Anyway, this question is perhaps more subjective than the other comments, and is only a small part of the entire question 6.
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Actually RNA. RNA can catalyze its own replication. DNA is more stable and came later.
Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?
E. Coli a simple bacteria reproduces primarly asexual reproduction. They can hook up and form a bridge of cytoplasm and swap DNA. This doesn't seem very complicated.
http://www.is.irl.cri.nz/level3/bacteria.html
Again, quoting a living creature today that can already perform a certain function is no answer. How could sexual reproduction evolve? You haven't answered the question, and it is very complex. And even more complex to ever evolve. Check the in-depth information. That is where the actual problem is described. Again you have only answered the summary without understanding the problem.
How could immune systems evolve?
Single cells can either gain resources from the static enviornment, or they can go after other cells by engulfing them. The other cells obviously do not want this to happen and have developed several methods of thwarting this including using their lysosomes to "counter attack" an immune system is just this on a grander scale.
Yet again, check the in-depth information. A story of what might have happened without describing how or why is no answer.
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Arrowhead shapes can be formed by natural phenomon such as glaciers. It may not take intellegence to make a human (one night of reckless abandon will do that) but to do it from scratch would probably take a long time.
Take an object today, let's say the arrowhead, forged smooth and careful, with a hole for the shaft. Now imagine the chances of that naturally occurring. Remember also that evolution is not genetically possible. It simply can't happen, as is introduced above in various links and questions. Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
Why shouldn't they spin another way, why is one way backwards? Though I kinda didn't want to use "god", what purpose in the grand design does different spin planets serve?
Read the in-depth info and not just the summary.
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there?any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
How about the "giant impact" theory?
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/
Again, read the in-depth section, it covers this and a number of other theories, all of which are inadequate.
I'm not sure how happy you will be with my response. Most of it was telling you to read the in-depth info and not just the summary. I hope that next time you will. Really, there is an answer for most questions, and the problems he lists have not been answered yet.
Just to bring some balance by presenting arguments that support creationism - so it's not all just an attack on evolution. Begginning here, and clicking on the next button, you will read a number of dating methods that indicate a young earth/universe.
As I said, I don't really want to waste more time on these discussions that go no-where. I should not have posted here in the first place. However, if you begin to genuinely question evolution and wonder if creationist arguments really do hold any water, I will be more than happy to help talk about it. But if after reading this you are not even slightly convinced at the fallacy of evolution, then I don't want to waste more time.
I agree with you 100%. I can't stand it when people believe something without thinking and considering. I can tolerate people who believe differently to me, as long as they have thought about it. I even find it irritating when people hold the same view as me stubbornly, without actually understanding why.
This frustrates me so much. You know nothing about the creationist position if you make statements like this.
1. Read the 20 questions, and READ THE INFORMATION! Every single question has at least one link to follow which describes the problem in detail. The questions are merely a summary. Perhaps then you will realise why these 20 questions are a problem for evolutionists. The problems that he raises are not addressed in normal textbooks. Speaking of which, it's amazing how many textbooks continue to propagate material that was shown false years ago. A friend of mine had a textbook that was published maybe 2 years ago, and still contained the forged examples by Ernst Haeckel.
2. On Mr. Brown's website there are a number of dating methods that give a young earth/young universe result. Read them if you want evidence. Read the hydroplate theory for predictions of a creationist model. They're all there on the website, the creationist evidence that you claim is missing. Although I admit I'm not sure what you meant by the word "miracle".
Hmm, you seem pretty confident. In my experience of arguing with evolutionists, most of the reason they consider a creationist model BS is because they don't understand it. I mean that exactly as I said - they don't understand the creationist position. They think they do - but in reality I have to constantly correct them. I think that's why a lot of people don't understand a lot of what Walt Brown says on his website.
A major example of such misunderstanding: Most evolutionists claim that natural selection, and the finches that Darwin observed are an example of evolution in action. On the contrary, the observations that Darwin made are perfectly consistent with the creationist model. The creationist model says that each kind was created initially, male and female (except for those with only one gender). These original kinds contained all the genetic diversity we see today, except for inherited mutations (such as on mtDNA). So it is expected for a creationist to see variations within species. What creationists deny is the possibility that mutations will ever produce enough variation to create a new species.
This is just one example of many misunderstandings. When evolutionists think of proof of evolution, they automatically bring to mind the finches, or any other similar example. Problem is they: a) Don't realise it is consistent with creationist model b) Don't realise that it is variation from existing genes, and that mutations are insufficient to explain new genetic traits, and especially new species.
"They believe what they believe and they aren't out to find the truth."
On the contrary, one of my primary motivations is pursuing the truth. If I thought that evolution was credible I would believe it. I used to believe evolution. I am a man who pursues truth and believes it is a noble thing to strive for. I have no fear of living and believing differently to those aroundme. I like to understand everything and correct any false views I might hold. The problem is, when I debate with evolutionists they ALWAYS misunderstand the creationist position (a source of constant frustration, having to retype things and say them over and over again), and can't explain with genetics how evolution is possible - among other problems.
On the other hand it is good that you are willing to read creationist sources for the legitimate problems they present. What I resent though is the implication that creationists believe their model because they are not interested in the truth. Again, I believe that a lot of the reason why people reject creationism is because they don't understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
As my grandfather who was a doctor said, "Doctors, mechanics and others like these all benefit from the misfortunes of others".
Today I just spent 3 1/2 hours updating security patches on a group of machines in an office for office 2000. The people there are annoyed about all the patches, and we joked about it being "this months security update". Now there's this, and I'm going to be called in again to update their machines. On one hand it's irritating, on the other hand it gives me more work, which I need at the moment.
A few of them are curious about Linux, and I keep it in their mind - not telling them that it will solve all their problems, but that in the near future it may be beneficial for them to consider it. I let them know an alternative is there, and they are positive, no knee-jerk reactions. I'm honest to them about it's advantages and disadvantages - where it will help them and where it will be a challenge. When the time is ripe they will change over - it is inevitable. This won't eliminate the need for security patches, but I hope through the use of thin clients only one or two machines will ever need updating.
I really like the idea of OEone's desktop. Combining with OpenOffice seems like an excellent idea - both projects should benefit from each other reviewing their products.
Doesn't matter about segfaults - these will get fixed as time passes and as the two projects co-operate. Alternatively submit bug reports yourself.
Why do you say in your .sig about moderators modding based on posts not users?
I have no idea how modding works. Is it done by selected people, or people with high karma? If it's the latter, then how would they all not mod based on a user? presumably only one or two would bias against a person?
But despite Tim O'Reilly's warnings, he still says:
In other words, switchers appear to be adopting Mac OS X at twice the rate of Mac OS 9 users. Linux users, and Windows users who also use Linux or another Unix, appear to be the most common switchers."
So while I don't disagree that it is possible that a greater number are coming from switchers than upgrades, I do think Tim should stick to his own warning - 15 responses is woefully inadequate for any representation.
I am hoping for my next computer to get a Mac with OSX. Thanks to Linux I've grown to know and love Unix.
Problem is, I need my windows partition for games. With a Mac OSX machine I could have a complete Unix environment, and still play most of the popular games. I don't think I'd be willing to give up Linux, but I'd certainly be happy having both OS's running on the same computer.
Linux has more than just stability. I love the whole philosophy behind it as many others do, and while Apple is closer than Microsoft, it's still not as good as Linux.
Do you get the feeling that people missed the point of why Rasterman and others (such as myself) say the Linux desktop has no future?
I am very confident that Linux will enjoy success on the desktop, enough perhaps to eliminate the Microsoft monopoly. But the question is not if the Linux desktop is dead - it's whether the desktop itself is dead.
I have posted about this once before. Embedded devices will integrate computing into the house. Average people don't like computers, they just use them. When they can do all computer related tasks through devices that integrate seamlessly into their life, the computer and the desktop will die.
Consider also a project like the OEone desktop - the beginning of blurring the line between oS. These are all signs of a new future of computing. Embedded devices are the future, not the desktop. So winning the desktop is like winning a battle, but not the war.
that's pretty bad, I've heard bad reports of Telstra compared to Optus cable here. Good luck, I hope that wireless networks help this problem:
http://www.wireless.org.au/
What about optus cable? Same 3gb limit but it seems to be cheaper.
I am planning on getting cable. Problem is, my dad wants Telstra since it's cable runs underground but Optus is above ground. Telstra is more expensive though, with no apparent advantage for the higher price. I'm checking out that whirpool weblink you advertised, thanks.
If you know of any other good alternatives for internet that are cost effective for residential use, and faster than dial-up then I'd be glad to hear, since I am considering a change now.
This could be very good news for me. At our church we have 5 PC's (plus another two in an office that's not directly the church's organisation). I've been trying to push Linux as the standard desktop, but am not getting far. The guy who makes the final decision works for Telstra. I really hope Telstra makes the switch - I suspect I will experience a lot less opposition if he starts using it at work. The main reason why he doesn't want to at the moment is because volunteers may use the computers on the reception, and wants them to be able to put experience with Microsoft products on their resume.
Apart from that, my demonstrations of Linux to him and another member of the church has nothing less than impressed them. The thin client option is extremely desirable in our church where money is an issue. At the moment if our church wants to add new machines we have to buy new hardware and another new license for windows and office. With the thin clients I can grab an old pentium 133 or so, plug it in, add it's MAC to the dhcp server and we're away. No license issues.
And I agree with you 100% - if people start using it at work they will see no reason to use it at home, especially since it will cost them $400+ (AUS) minimum to get outfitted with Microsoft software for a new machine. Unfamiliarity is one of the great fears. And those who think they know a little about computers don't want to feel like technology has left them behind - and Linux may give them that feel even if it is totally inaccurate.
Xbox costs Microsoft money.
I'm sure we all remember the Indrema project.
What if we were to use the Xbox hardware to revive the vision of the Indrema? Once this project gets it going, we could have a Linux gaming console.
I agree, this is not much of a surprise discovery. I mean, which of us didn't think there would be gene(s) that controlled our ability to talk? It wasn't a question of whether they exist, but where they are.
It seems that a lot of the problem with speech is also in the mind. Example, teaching an ape to talk or communicate - put it in the wild and it's friends do not start to learn to communicate in a more advanced form. The language is lost on that monkey. So even if they had the ability to speak, it is highly unlikely that they would develop a complex language. Their mind is not ready.
In the same train of thought, if humans were unable to speak, then given our current bodies we would find other ways to communicate - sign language, written words, etc. Having a mutation that enables speech does not guaruntee anything.
So I agree with the article, that "many other genetic changes would likely be necessary to produce a talking animal, and several said they doubted anything of the sort would ever be possible, let alone desirable."
I understood what you were saying. Someone said that if light had decreased at a constant rate we'd beat it on our push bikes. I merely pointed out that we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the decrease rate is, and it could be exponential. I have no idea what it actually is, but I was pointing out that fact to the original poster. I wasn't saying it IS exponential, I was just giving that as one of many numerous explanations. His idiotic comments were an issue for both evolutionists and creationists if a decrease in the speed of light is true.
See above, I'm a sucker.
Incorrect. The original article was found on the internet and was truely published as the footnote on the website said. It was published in 1997, whereas all your references were 1996 or earlier. This is a problem, because the new discovery occurred in 1997. The article was written by an evolutionist, so as to avoid accusations of bias or some other unfair accusal.
You might have trouble believing the scientists.
a) There is no way the world population could reach 6billion in the 4500 years since the flood
or
b) There is no way the world population could be as low as 6billion if it grew from the 4500 years since the flood?
I'm sure it's not the second, since that would pose problems for evolution if we accepted it's assumption.
So the first point must be the issue - that the population could not reach 6billion in 4500 years. Obviously you cannot create a formula and say this is what the population must have been at these times. Doing the formula is merely saying "Given the most conservative values, would there be enough time for the population to reach 6 billion?". Of course, it comes up with ridiculous estimates of 17 people at the construction of pyramids, etc...but that is because it is a conservative estimate to demonstrate that 6billion people in 4500 years is by no means unfeasable. If we increase the growth rate, and assume that wars and famine contributed to the decline of population at certain points, then it quite easily explains the needed population at different time periods.
Now assuming a constant growth rate of 1%, the estimated growth rate of the world in 2015 (it's currently about 1.5%, it was higher), the world's population today after 4500 years would be:
Shut the fuck up with these pathetic arguments! How in the bloody hell is ANY person supposed to take an evolutionist seriously when they resort to personal insults all the time? I could easily take hits at all the idiotic arguments, pathetic attempts at understanding, and more that I've seen, but I have tried in the past to remain respectable. I hate statements that cannot be argued against, such as those springing from ignorance and stubborness. I will discuss with people who don't resort to such insults, but you are not one of them, Black Parrot. I've encountered you before, quoting out of date articles (mtDNA ring a bell?). So I don't think I shall respond to any of your posts anymore. And just remember why - not because of your 'superior' arguing skills, or because I was 'blinded' by your light of logic - but because you resorted to petty insults, and do exactly what you complain creationists do, hypocrite. So just remember why, and don't confuse it.223,497,000,000,000,000,000
Now of course coming up with a steady formula has the problems you listed above, that there are too low populations at one end, and too high at the other. But you are forgetting a few factors:
* Famine, disease, drought, flood - these work to reduce population
* Culture, religion - this can work to give population booms, or to have a society with very few children (western society tends to have less than eastern countries)
* War - this works to reduce numbers. The Bible records many wars.
Because of these factors it is impossible to come up with accurate population estimates for any particular period of time. But one thing we know for sure:
It is completely reasonable to assume that the population could have increased from 8 people to 6billion in just 4500 years. So such a statement neither affirms nor denies evolution or creation. It is not relevant, it is not an issue. I'm tempted to explain in more detail, but I'm sure any lurkers will understand, and as you will see below I've given up on you.
Like everyone else is saying, this article is well worth the read.
I am working to start up a business involved with computer systems and security - both on a software/hardware level, and also general building security. This has given me some great inights, and I'll certainly look to read more of his works.
It is interesting, he has confirmed something that I have considered an immutable law - that no matter how failsafe a system is, it will always fail. This is proven again and again throughout history, and there is no reason for us to expect it to stop. There is no perfect government, no completely secure castle, no perfect human - failure WILL occur, so plan for it.
This article serves also as a good reminder to get back to reality - there is a digital world, but it exists in a real world. Security cannot be automated, and never will be. When a new technology emerges so will the ability to defeat it. We must remember the human factor in everything.
For some reason I can't connect to this website. Any chance someone could give me the IP address so I can view the website?
/.'ed
Unless it's been
Thanks.
You continue to miss the point. I'm not wasting my time anymore. Anyone with half a brain should have seen what I meant, so I don't need to worry about lurkers misunderstanding what I was saying.
Oh my, are you really so thick headed? Why is C14 not valid for dates past what you gave? Because there is no C14 present!!!
Get it??? So if a sample that is thought to be really old has some C14 left, then it is younger than we thought! Understand? It's really quite simple!
Great argument, I'm convinced.
I somehow knew that someone would make this comment. The younger the sample, within 5000 years, the more accurate the result can be. The further back you go the wider the variation of the date. It doesn't matter how long C14 is uesful for, my point still stands. This is nitpicking.
I used to enjoy these conversations. I don't anymore. I get tired of explaining things I've explained a thousand times before, correcting misunderstandings, and generally repeating myself.
False. The evolution that Charles Darwin observed in the Galapagos was a form of microevolution, perfectly consistent with the creationist model. A lot of the criticism of the creationist model springs from a misunderstanding of it I think.
Microevolution: variation within a species from already present genetic information. Observable, verifiable.
Macroevolution: variation within a species through genetic mutation that eventually leads to a new species. Not observable, unverifiable. Processes today seem to indicate this is impossible.
Now if you had followed the link for each of the summary 20 questions, this would have been explained for you. These 20 questions are a summary, not the argument themselves. You are meant to follow the links to discover, in depth, what the problem is. Consider a parent bear who has the genes for brown fur and white fur. This code was passed on for a number of generations - as long as the bears have been around. The child inherits white fur from both parents. Natural selection makes this child more likely to survive in a snowy environment than any of it's brothers with brown fur. It was not a genetic mutation that gave this white fur - it was simply inherited from it's parents. This is microevolution which a creationist model predicts. What evolution predicts is that new mutations will occur often enough to bring useful changes - skin color changes, different beak sizes, etc, without a negative change travelling hand in hand. Unfortunately, for evolution, that is not what observation shows. I hope you understood. Either way read the link that was with the question please. You have not answered the problem posed by Walt Brown.
No, you answered what happens after the traits are created. The question is what mechanism produces the new complexity, the new traits. Again, read the actual in-depth discussion, not just the summary.
Hang on. You say that there was no heart, then suddenly an organ appears that "started moving the fluid" - when the question is clearly about the period between not having the organ, and then the organ working. There is a period where the organ is totally useless, performs no function. Indeed, such an organ would be a hindrance and probably selected against.
What mutation could possibly turn a leg from being a good leg into a bad wing in one single step? The problem is evolution takes steps, and all the steps transitioning from a good leg to a bad wing make it useless, and natural selection would select against such a mutation. And not just nature, but also mates. How many humans today would be attracted to someone whose leg looked a bit like a wing, but did nothing useful? If you have the chance, read the comic on the top of page 226 of The Dilbert Future. So again you are skipping steps. The problem was about the transition from a good leg to a bad wing, you missed that step and skipped strait to a bad wing.
You ignored the question in the link that the comment was related to - a question of probabilities. Again, by only reading the summary you missed the question.
Thanks for the example, but how is that relevant? You point to already existing creatures which a creationist believes were created at the beginning. This isn't an answer at all. So to repeat the question - How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? The question is not an example of a transitional creature, but a question of the process of transitioning from a useless bulb into a working eye.
SIMPLE??!?!? Assumably they randomly collect to form a pump? Rubbish! You haven't explained anything, just given a fairy tale of what could have happened. And a poor answer at that. How would the pumps self assemble? How would they reproduce? How would they join together to form a motor? How do these motors form in the first place? Remember that they are useless for a number of steps until they work. Answer the question - How could a bacterial motor evolve? - and read the followup for the summary for an indepth description of the problem.
Please refer to these references for a quick discussion of the problems with this theory. Basically, while it fits the fossil record, it doesn't fit the way genetics works. Evolutionary jumps simply don't and can't happen. That's what the reference I have just given talks about.
This question is asking where the trunk is in the fossil record. As quoted from the in-depth discussion and not the summary question:
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified,a and dispersed--worldwide. - and more.
Nematode worms are alive today. Do you have evidence that they were the ansestor of insects in the fossil record?
Again, in reading the summary only you missed the core of the question. The answer is more than just a story - it's a question of being literally possible or not. The in-depth discussion has more details.
Miracle can mean remarkable event. Some things do happen that defy all odds. Walt Brown was describing that the step to get first living cell is even more impossible than the chance of getting a bacteria to evolve to a man.
Do you realize the chances of even one single celled life forming? And now you are asking us to believe, that even though one cell forming is nigh impossible, that multiple cells formed and one of these many cells was 'lucky' enough to be able to reproduce?? Again check the in-depth information. This is asking us to believe the impossible.Hmm, the in-depth description of the question doesn't seem to answer why the oxygen question is important. I have read it elsewhere on the website, I'll see if I can find it.... oh yes, it's here. This describes why the question of oxygen is important.
I'm pretty sure that by "a strictly natural process that creates information" he was referring to genetic information, not just anything. Otherwise you could argue that destruction of a building creates information - the question becomes meaningless. You see this is one of the problems with genetic mutations - they only change already present information. It mutates a gene from being one thing to another. Processes that produce new information - like what would have been necessary for evolution - are unknown. Mutations bring about a disadvantage because of a loss of information. You gain one trait and lose another, and the new one is 99.99% harmful/harmless. Beneficial mutations are almost unknown. Check here and here for the problem of information.
Amino acids may naturally form, but proteins do not. Proteins tend to break down into amino acids, not the other way around. If you read the in-depth description and not just the summary, it talks about this. So answer the problems given and not just the summary.
The question is related to how this information came about. See the problems above and the links I posted, describing the problem with obtaining new information. A DVD has information intelligently designed, and snowflakes are pretty but they do not perform any mechanical function from their amazing shapes.
Not at all. DNA is not just complex, it is completely meaningful. It all performs a function that is necessary for our existence. And this is true of information present in the whole spectrum of life. This meaningful information could not have come about by chance (see above comments). It seems logical to conclude that it had an intelligent origin. Imagine if we discovered a spherical device the size of a baseball. It could do an amazing number of things - change it's shape, endure amazing temperatures, communicate through vibrations with language. Inside it we discovered wires tinier than our scientists have been able to miniaturize, and circuitry of amazing complexity. We would conclude that this device was created by some race far in advance of our own. Life is the same - life is presumably the greatest things that could ever be created. The most intelligently designed, integral working machines in the universe. Infinitely more amazing than the example device I mentioned. Yet this complexity is the reason why you reject it as being created? Anyway, this question is perhaps more subjective than the other comments, and is only a small part of the entire question 6.
Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.
Again, quoting a living creature today that can already perform a certain function is no answer. How could sexual reproduction evolve? You haven't answered the question, and it is very complex. And even more complex to ever evolve. Check the in-depth information. That is where the actual problem is described. Again you have only answered the summary without understanding the problem.
Yet again, check the in-depth information. A story of what might have happened without describing how or why is no answer.
Take an object today, let's say the arrowhead, forged smooth and careful, with a hole for the shaft. Now imagine the chances of that naturally occurring. Remember also that evolution is not genetically possible. It simply can't happen, as is introduced above in various links and questions. Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.
Read the in-depth info and not just the summary.
Again, read the in-depth section, it covers this and a number of other theories, all of which are inadequate.
I'm not sure how happy you will be with my response. Most of it was telling you to read the in-depth info and not just the summary. I hope that next time you will. Really, there is an answer for most questions, and the problems he lists have not been answered yet.
Just to bring some balance by presenting arguments that support creationism - so it's not all just an attack on evolution. Begginning here, and clicking on the next button, you will read a number of dating methods that indicate a young earth/universe.
As I said, I don't really want to waste more time on these discussions that go no-where. I should not have posted here in the first place. However, if you begin to genuinely question evolution and wonder if creationist arguments really do hold any water, I will be more than happy to help talk about it. But if after reading this you are not even slightly convinced at the fallacy of evolution, then I don't want to waste more time.
I agree with you 100%. I can't stand it when people believe something without thinking and considering. I can tolerate people who believe differently to me, as long as they have thought about it. I even find it irritating when people hold the same view as me stubbornly, without actually understanding why.
I shall give you the response soon.
This frustrates me so much. You know nothing about the creationist position if you make statements like this.
1. Read the 20 questions, and READ THE INFORMATION! Every single question has at least one link to follow which describes the problem in detail. The questions are merely a summary. Perhaps then you will realise why these 20 questions are a problem for evolutionists. The problems that he raises are not addressed in normal textbooks. Speaking of which, it's amazing how many textbooks continue to propagate material that was shown false years ago. A friend of mine had a textbook that was published maybe 2 years ago, and still contained the forged examples by Ernst Haeckel.
2. On Mr. Brown's website there are a number of dating methods that give a young earth/young universe result. Read them if you want evidence. Read the hydroplate theory for predictions of a creationist model. They're all there on the website, the creationist evidence that you claim is missing. Although I admit I'm not sure what you meant by the word "miracle".
Hmm, you seem pretty confident. In my experience of arguing with evolutionists, most of the reason they consider a creationist model BS is because they don't understand it. I mean that exactly as I said - they don't understand the creationist position. They think they do - but in reality I have to constantly correct them. I think that's why a lot of people don't understand a lot of what Walt Brown says on his website.
A major example of such misunderstanding:
Most evolutionists claim that natural selection, and the finches that Darwin observed are an example of evolution in action. On the contrary, the observations that Darwin made are perfectly consistent with the creationist model. The creationist model says that each kind was created initially, male and female (except for those with only one gender). These original kinds contained all the genetic diversity we see today, except for inherited mutations (such as on mtDNA). So it is expected for a creationist to see variations within species. What creationists deny is the possibility that mutations will ever produce enough variation to create a new species.
This is just one example of many misunderstandings. When evolutionists think of proof of evolution, they automatically bring to mind the finches, or any other similar example. Problem is they:
a) Don't realise it is consistent with creationist model
b) Don't realise that it is variation from existing genes, and that mutations are insufficient to explain new genetic traits, and especially new species.
"They believe what they believe and they aren't out to find the truth."
On the contrary, one of my primary motivations is pursuing the truth. If I thought that evolution was credible I would believe it. I used to believe evolution. I am a man who pursues truth and believes it is a noble thing to strive for. I have no fear of living and believing differently to those aroundme. I like to understand everything and correct any false views I might hold. The problem is, when I debate with evolutionists they ALWAYS misunderstand the creationist position (a source of constant frustration, having to retype things and say them over and over again), and can't explain with genetics how evolution is possible - among other problems.
On the other hand it is good that you are willing to read creationist sources for the legitimate problems they present. What I resent though is the implication that creationists believe their model because they are not interested in the truth. Again, I believe that a lot of the reason why people reject creationism is because they don't understand it.