And so I am vindicated for quoting from one source only, from the mouth of an evolutionis - creationscience.com "is specifically intended to serve as a clearinghouse to dispense information about the most common" evolutionist arguments.
You don't use C14 to measure the age of rocks. You use C14 to measure the age of things that were once alive.
But if you date something that was living, then you presume the rock it was found in, and the rocks next to it, are around the same age. Get it? Probably not.
We'll stop treating you like children when you stop putting your fingers in your ears, jumping up and down, screaming, "I'm not listening, that's not the way it works".
Oh yeah? What's your answer for mtDNA? I was given two articles by evolutionists with outdated information. What's your response?
I'm tired of these discussions. And you, Black Parrot, seem to consistently be the easiest to refute, the least rational, and the rudest. I suggest you stop talking before you give all your peers a bad name.
If your talkorigins.org website is so sure, then why don't they put in their combined effort and debunk the supposed myths at creationscience.com? I even sent something in their comments asking them if they'd be willing - no response.
I have no idea about the speed of light. Absolutely zero. I was just pointing out that we don't know how much light decreased by, if at all. I'm going to leave this question up to the scientists. I was simply pointing out that you cannot assume a uniform rate of decrease. Quite a simple argument really.
You get a similar problem when biblical literalists argue that a smooth exponential population growth explains how the present population of the world arose from Noah's family of eight. The problem arises when you look at other points on the curve and realize that there would have only been a couple of hundred people in the whole world when the Great Pyramid was built.
I don't understand, are you saying that the population of the world couldn't have arisen in 4,500 years from 8 people? Because that's certainly not true. From the Bible record it seems that people had a lot of children. The sons of Noah between them had 16 male children. Add to that, probably on average 16 females (give or take a few). That's double in one generation. It wouldn't take long for this to exceed thousands, then tens of thousands. The Bible records the number of male children they had for the first two generations I think. If you want to see if it's possible, go work it out for yourself. I can't be bothered.
Why can't C14 be used for dates greater than about 5000 years? Because there is supposedly no C14 left!!! So, if we take a sample that is supposedly 50,000,000 years old, then we would expect to find NO C14. Now, if we take this sample, and there is enough C14 to give us a date, then two things can be concluded: 1. The dates given by different methods do not agree with each other 2. The sample is perhaps much younger than previously thought
An atheist has just as much to lose. If evolution turns out to be false, then suddenly there is a God, and there is meaning to our actions. Which also means responsibility.
The logical conclusion of evolution is that there is no meaning, no right and wrong. While doing something may not be desired by many, it is certainly not 'wrong'.
How many times does "created" come up in your arguments?
The flood was described as a supernatural event. It is only expected that some things occurred in it (eg the flood itself) by miraculous means. After all, that's what the Bible says. The area of science for a creationist here is describing what they would expect to see if the flood had occurred, and see if the evidence fits those predictions. When the waters receeded in the Bible it says that God had his hand in that event, so I can safely use the word "created". Read the hydroplate theory if you want a full description of predictions if the flood were true, on http://www.creationscience.com
How about I make you a deal? I'll answer those 11 points you put down, if that's all I have to do.
I'm tired of discussing evolution & creation on forums, etc. I should not have posted to here. So I will answer your 11 responses if that is the end and I walk away - whether or not you agree with me.
The main reason I wrote the initial post was to see if anyone was willing to engage in the written debate since they are so sure of the fact of evolution. I doubt anyone will ever take him up, for whatever reason. Sad for evolutionists.
A couple of issues with this statement: First, C14 has nothing to do with dating the age of the earth (it's a short time scale tool).
I am aware of that. C14 dating is common, and was an example I plucked out of numerous ones.
Really, if the various methods were as fraught with problems as some people would lead you to believe, they would not agree with each other (they do) and scientists using them for other subjects that are not so politically charged would have stopped long ago.
Evolution took the world by storm. It won by popularity contest even before there was evidence for it, just Charles Darwin's hypotheses. The world was ready to hear it and they grabbed onto it.
Let's take an example. A fossil is found next to a trillobite. Let's say trilobites are dated at 350 million years old (don't know exact figure). Scientists see this new fossil, and say to themselves "It's next to a trilobite which we know to be 350 million years old, so it must be about the same". Then they write that result down. There is no C14 test because it is assumed no C14 will be present anmore.
To test this hypotheses creationists did some tests on samples that were supposedly millions of years old with no trace of C14. Tests showed that they did have acceptable amounts of C14 for a relevant testing. What does this say? Two things:
1. The dating methods are not consistent with each other
2. The dates of many fossils are based on the dates of others...meaning that if one of the early ones was found with a wrong date, then all the ones dated from it are false.
As far as I have been able to see, the dating methods do not agree with each other.
Ah, just found a nice summary with references after I wrote this.
Dr. Brown consistently complains that people attack him in forums in which he cannot respond (books, etc.). I've never seen him in the talk.origins newsgroup. It's a written forum, just as he required.
talk.origins newsgroup is nothing like what he wants. What he wants is a dedicated, in-depth, careful analysis - where careful research is done on each point, and a chance to respond to the points is given. In a newsgroup evidence tends to be short (because it's written on the spot) and disjointed, with lots of misunderstandings. At any rate, it's nothing like what he wants, and I can understand why.
If you have a specific complaint about a particular scientific method used to support modern evolutionary theory and or modern geology, write it up and see if you can get it into a real journal with real experts waiting to critique your reasoning.
From Walt Brown's website: No journal would allocate the number of pages that such a debate would require. Besides, the journals you refer to are controlled by evolutionists, so they would likely not provide a platform to have their beliefs criticized. Nor do they publish any research questioning evolution and supporting creation. Publishers of these journals would be severely criticized by their subscribers and advertisers if they did. (The few evolutionists who participate in oral debates often admit how much they are criticized by other evolutionists for participating in a debate.) In a well-publicized case, one journal, Scientific American, withdrew a contract to hire a highly qualified assistant editor when the journal's executives learned he was a creationist.
That's like asking a Christian to let an atheist publish anti-God arguments in their monthly magazine. Face facts - evolution AND creation are more than just theories. The answer to these questions will be fundamentally more than just "how old is the earth?". It will address whether there is a God, whether there is an afterlife or not, whether this life has any meaning, and much more. Our whole life stands to be turned around by this question. So it is unreasonable for me to expect anyone to be unbiased about this question. Or at least any atheist (because many Christians have already reconciled their beliefs with evolution). This is not just a question of science, but a question of our entire life direction and purpose.
In kind, Tom Scharle has posted a set of 10 largely unanswered questions for the creationist side of things here [talkorigins.org]. Among highlights are, "Where did all of the water from the flood come from and go?" and "Is there any observation which was predicted by your [creation] theory?"
Oh my. Where did the water come from? If you don't know the answer to this then you really haven't understood the creation theory. There was, before the flood, a mist that covered the earth and watered it. There was, also, underground, large resorvoirs of water. When the flood occured this mist came as rain, and the underground resorvoirs burst from below and covered the earth. Where the water went - after this catastrophe the earth's shape was largely changed. Ocean basins were created and the waters receded into them. Imagine, if you can, that the earth was completely flat. Then there would be no problem of the water in todays oceans covering the earth. Now of course the earth isn't flat, but it is very different today to what it was before. There was a lot of geological upheaval during the flood.
As for predictions of the creatinist, check out the hydroplate theory (The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview) on Walt Brown's website. It includes a number of predictions. Alternatively, look for predictions in the index in the bottom left from.
And just again, for completeness sake, forums and newsgroups are not a fruitful place for evolution vs creation discussion. I have wasted many hours in fruitless, circular arguments. But like a sucker I keep coming back. I would not expect Walt Brown to do the same - hopefully he's wiser than me. And don't think I have this attitude because I'm defeated. I just get real tired of going around in circles. Which is why I'd like to see a final, authoritative discussion like Walt Brown proposes.
Anyway, signing out. I'm tired of these discussions.
The fact that these three religions accept the Hebrew Scriptures which teach a 6000 year old universe. So if the universe, or the earth, was shown to be 6000 years old, then the religions that claimed that would be the most logical faiths to follow. Ones that had claimed millions/billions/trillions of years would seem the least likely.
I grow tired of typing. Rebutt these with logic and/or facts and I'll do the rest of the questions. Don't just point at a creationist website and say "see". Thats looser debate;)
And I get tired of having to spell out every word to evolutionists who don't bother reading a creationist article correctly. The 20 questions were a summary. You neglected, it seems, to follow the links present with every single question. So you answered what you thought the problem was - not the actual problem.
I can see why most wiser creationists avoid debating origins on forums. Evolutionists consistently ignore and forget what is being written.
If you are so certain of evolution, then respond to the written challenge of the author.
In response to the 20 questions pointed to by Tyreth (note it might be nice to quote people other than Dr. Walt Brown intellegent as he might be):
Sure, but evolutionists only ever quote talkorigins.org - though you might say that's multiple authors. Whenever I quote ICR or Answers In Genesis, most evolutionists choke and have trouble even clicking the link. Walt Brown's work is untainted yet, so I can post links to it that evolutionsts have a chance of reading. If evolutionists were more open minded about considering alternative theories, then perhaps I'd be able to present a wider number of people's works.
You are missing the point. People were talking about how if light slowed at a constant pace you should be able to beat it in a pushbike in a couple of years. The assumption in that comment was that light decreased at a fixed, static rate. I was merely saying that it could decrease in the manner I suggested. There is no evidence for that any more than constant as far as I can tell.
"As an aside, I wonder how many creationists out there have realized that even if some form of creationism is true, that it doesn't prove anything about their individual religions. In other words, even if the universe was created, that doesn't mean that it was created by the God of Abraham, or by Brahma, etc, etc, etc."
Yes I have considered that and I am well aware that if creationism was proven to be true that there would not be a mass renewing of people to Christianity. The three most viable religions if creationism is proven true are: * Judaism * Christianity * Islam Along with all the cults under those (such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses). As for other religions, Hinduism teaches a universe trillions of years old. New Agers teach in the Masters who have guided the evolution of mankind over the years. Interestingly enough, almost every religion (including Hinduism) has a concept of there being one Creator God. It seems like mankind as a whole understands that we have a Creator. It's just the question of what service, if any, is owed to Him. His nature and His revealed truth. There are very few in the world that deny the existence of one God above all the other gods.
So what? Evolution is a religion and a philosophy - and a fairy tale at that. You almost sound like you want to censor information. If you are so sure of evolution, then read the challenge in this post:
Creation scientists claimed for a while the possibility of the speed of light decreasing. They were hammered about this from every quarter. Now it seems that it might be credible.
A lot of science done seems to be based on the assumption that the universe is billions of years old, and that the earth itself is around 4.5 billion years old (subject to change). Indeed, a lot of dating methods such as c14 rely on assumptions that can't be verified - that would actually be false assumptions if we accept the creationist model including a worldwide flood.
It seems to me that everyone could benefit from the creation vs evolution question being finally answered. Science can only go so far if it is based on a faulty foundation.
So for all you budding evolutionists that are so sure your theory is correct - Dr. Walt Brown proposes a challenge which has never been taken up. A challenge that seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you don't feel you have the skills, then maybe you know others that do. Either way, the longer this challenge goes unanswered, the more certain creationists will feel about their position.
So anyway, Dr Walt Brown has a challenge of a written debate to settle this question. So far argument has been refined to pockets of discussion that don't go far, and books published against each other. This would be a great opportunity if anyone was confident enough in evolution.
At any rate, STOP treating creationists like children. I have had many evolution discussions and there is very little evidence for evolution at all. The weight certainly seems to be on the creationist side (and yes I am biased). There is certainly enough evidence for creation theory to make it credible, and not the realm of fairy tales. At least, before you feel tempted to call creationism a fairy tale, consider the following: 20 problems
Not all of us who believe in creationism do so blindly. At least understand (because very few people I've argued with understand the creationist position - they just know we think that the earth is young and there was a flood. That's it) our position and consider it properly. When I see a creationist argument I think to myself automatically, "If I believed evolution, how would I answer this?". That is because I understand evolution, at least as well as the next person. But no-one seems to understand the creationist position.
Why can't it decrease in speed following a formula like y=x^2 where x=speed of light and y= time passed since the origin of the universe? In which case we would expect light to steady out to an almost constant rate eventually, with a huge decrease in speed near the beginning.
I should really check with my parents accountant to find out if the Quicken/Quickbooks software is the only financial software he supports. That would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?
I've never heard of sprintf() being insecure. If it is so dangerous why isn't there a warning in the man file recommending the use of snprintf()? That way at least people have a chance of seeing that it is insecure.
I think my mum might even be pleased. The press release says "full support for QuickBooks will be forthcoming in the near future". After that I'll have everything my mother needs.
I've been slowly drawing my mother over to Linux. I'm using it and say "Mum come and look at this". And I show her this feature (the updated weather icon in gnome) or that feature, and she says "Can I do that?". So I reply "Sorry mum, you're using windows."
Perhaps soon I'll be able to switch her over at work. She needs quicken and quickbooks for her work since we send that file format off to the accountant.
As I said to another post, listening to e-mails is just one of a few human solutions. Another alternative is to have the e-mails projected directly onto your eye (ala a previous slashdot story). This way no-one can look over your shoulder:) It will have to be a human interface with multiple methods of using it. Busy doing something? Have the e-mails read out to you. Quicker at reading? Have it projected onto your eye to view it. Want to share it? Use the same projecter (a very small portable device) to show it on your wall, or a specially prepared monitor/interface like those in minority report.
Regarding computer programming, this new interface is just that - an interface. You could easily have access points to plug in a traditional keyboard or some other typing device to actually get down to the source code level and modify the code that runs all the hardware. It's just that most people won't need that keyboard.
You are just adding new functionality to the existing technology. I'm talking about a change of lifestyle, the way we think of computers. You don't like your e-mails being read out? They can be projected directly onto your retina for your viewing pleasure. No-one else will be able to look over your shoulder when you do that. The point is that it will change computers.
Internet browsing will be different too. I can't say how it will be different, but the current setup is less natural than it will be 10 years from now.
Hmm, I have heard that about some people being unable to think in 3d...but if we keep the concepts and shapes simple and familiar, it shouldn't be more difficult than real life.
The reason they came and went is a number of reasons - technology capability, cost, etc. Eg, video phones would have been expensive and quite useless. They don't give much added advantage. The potential for technology in the near future will be very different to the past, things considered unfeasable previously I think will become natural.
Fuck that, I love being able to choose browsers and window managers. Some people love KDE and GNOME - I can't stand it! Enlightenment has been my favourite window manager almost since I started using Linux - Afterstep was my first.
Everyone should drive the same car with the same features. Everyone should wear the same clothes. Everyone should have the same house so plumbers and electricians know where to find everything, and kitchen solutions can be optimised for that house. Everyone can have the same pet so vets only need knowledge for that particular breed. Everyone can listen to the same music so that bands know what will be popular and what won't. And so on. You know all this to be rubbish because people love choice. I love choice. Don't you dare take away from me the choice that Linux has given me.
Slashdot Mirror
Please compare:
I did not look at talkorigins.org until after I crafted my response
with
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Thankyou for wording it properly for me.
But if you date something that was living, then you presume the rock it was found in, and the rocks next to it, are around the same age. Get it? Probably not.
Oh yeah? What's your answer for mtDNA? I was given two articles by evolutionists with outdated information. What's your response?
I'm tired of these discussions. And you, Black Parrot, seem to consistently be the easiest to refute, the least rational, and the rudest. I suggest you stop talking before you give all your peers a bad name.
If your talkorigins.org website is so sure, then why don't they put in their combined effort and debunk the supposed myths at creationscience.com? I even sent something in their comments asking them if they'd be willing - no response.
I don't understand, are you saying that the population of the world couldn't have arisen in 4,500 years from 8 people? Because that's certainly not true. From the Bible record it seems that people had a lot of children. The sons of Noah between them had 16 male children. Add to that, probably on average 16 females (give or take a few). That's double in one generation. It wouldn't take long for this to exceed thousands, then tens of thousands. The Bible records the number of male children they had for the first two generations I think. If you want to see if it's possible, go work it out for yourself. I can't be bothered.
Stop being a complete idiot.
Why can't C14 be used for dates greater than about 5000 years? Because there is supposedly no C14 left!!! So, if we take a sample that is supposedly 50,000,000 years old, then we would expect to find NO C14. Now, if we take this sample, and there is enough C14 to give us a date, then two things can be concluded:
1. The dates given by different methods do not agree with each other
2. The sample is perhaps much younger than previously thought
Do you understand now?
The logical conclusion of evolution is that there is no meaning, no right and wrong. While doing something may not be desired by many, it is certainly not 'wrong'.
The flood was described as a supernatural event. It is only expected that some things occurred in it (eg the flood itself) by miraculous means. After all, that's what the Bible says. The area of science for a creationist here is describing what they would expect to see if the flood had occurred, and see if the evidence fits those predictions. When the waters receeded in the Bible it says that God had his hand in that event, so I can safely use the word "created". Read the hydroplate theory if you want a full description of predictions if the flood were true, on http://www.creationscience.com
How about I make you a deal? I'll answer those 11 points you put down, if that's all I have to do.
I'm tired of discussing evolution & creation on forums, etc. I should not have posted to here. So I will answer your 11 responses if that is the end and I walk away - whether or not you agree with me.
The main reason I wrote the initial post was to see if anyone was willing to engage in the written debate since they are so sure of the fact of evolution. I doubt anyone will ever take him up, for whatever reason. Sad for evolutionists.
So do we have a deal?
Are you still in English? I don't mean to offend, but I couldn't make heads or tails of your response.
And you read 200 pages of what?
Evolution took the world by storm. It won by popularity contest even before there was evidence for it, just Charles Darwin's hypotheses. The world was ready to hear it and they grabbed onto it.
Let's take an example. A fossil is found next to a trillobite. Let's say trilobites are dated at 350 million years old (don't know exact figure). Scientists see this new fossil, and say to themselves "It's next to a trilobite which we know to be 350 million years old, so it must be about the same". Then they write that result down. There is no C14 test because it is assumed no C14 will be present anmore.
talk.origins newsgroup is nothing like what he wants. What he wants is a dedicated, in-depth, careful analysis - where careful research is done on each point, and a chance to respond to the points is given. In a newsgroup evidence tends to be short (because it's written on the spot) and disjointed, with lots of misunderstandings. At any rate, it's nothing like what he wants, and I can understand why.To test this hypotheses creationists did some tests on samples that were supposedly millions of years old with no trace of C14. Tests showed that they did have acceptable amounts of C14 for a relevant testing. What does this say? Two things:
1. The dating methods are not consistent with each other
2. The dates of many fossils are based on the dates of others...meaning that if one of the early ones was found with a wrong date, then all the ones dated from it are false.
As far as I have been able to see, the dating methods do not agree with each other.
Ah, just found a nice summary with references after I wrote this.
From Walt Brown's website: No journal would allocate the number of pages that such a debate would require. Besides, the journals you refer to are controlled by evolutionists, so they would likely not provide a platform to have their beliefs criticized. Nor do they publish any research questioning evolution and supporting creation. Publishers of these journals would be severely criticized by their subscribers and advertisers if they did. (The few evolutionists who participate in oral debates often admit how much they are criticized by other evolutionists for participating in a debate.) In a well-publicized case, one journal, Scientific American, withdrew a contract to hire a highly qualified assistant editor when the journal's executives learned he was a creationist.
That's like asking a Christian to let an atheist publish anti-God arguments in their monthly magazine. Face facts - evolution AND creation are more than just theories. The answer to these questions will be fundamentally more than just "how old is the earth?". It will address whether there is a God, whether there is an afterlife or not, whether this life has any meaning, and much more. Our whole life stands to be turned around by this question. So it is unreasonable for me to expect anyone to be unbiased about this question. Or at least any atheist (because many Christians have already reconciled their beliefs with evolution). This is not just a question of science, but a question of our entire life direction and purpose.
Oh my. Where did the water come from? If you don't know the answer to this then you really haven't understood the creation theory. There was, before the flood, a mist that covered the earth and watered it. There was, also, underground, large resorvoirs of water. When the flood occured this mist came as rain, and the underground resorvoirs burst from below and covered the earth. Where the water went - after this catastrophe the earth's shape was largely changed. Ocean basins were created and the waters receded into them. Imagine, if you can, that the earth was completely flat. Then there would be no problem of the water in todays oceans covering the earth. Now of course the earth isn't flat, but it is very different today to what it was before. There was a lot of geological upheaval during the flood.
As for predictions of the creatinist, check out the hydroplate theory (The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview) on Walt Brown's website. It includes a number of predictions. Alternatively, look for predictions in the index in the bottom left from.
And just again, for completeness sake, forums and newsgroups are not a fruitful place for evolution vs creation discussion. I have wasted many hours in fruitless, circular arguments. But like a sucker I keep coming back. I would not expect Walt Brown to do the same - hopefully he's wiser than me. And don't think I have this attitude because I'm defeated. I just get real tired of going around in circles. Which is why I'd like to see a final, authoritative discussion like Walt Brown proposes.
Anyway, signing out. I'm tired of these discussions.
The fact that these three religions accept the Hebrew Scriptures which teach a 6000 year old universe. So if the universe, or the earth, was shown to be 6000 years old, then the religions that claimed that would be the most logical faiths to follow. Ones that had claimed millions/billions/trillions of years would seem the least likely.
And I get tired of having to spell out every word to evolutionists who don't bother reading a creationist article correctly. The 20 questions were a summary. You neglected, it seems, to follow the links present with every single question. So you answered what you thought the problem was - not the actual problem.
I can see why most wiser creationists avoid debating origins on forums. Evolutionists consistently ignore and forget what is being written.
If you are so certain of evolution, then respond to the written challenge of the author.
Sure, but evolutionists only ever quote talkorigins.org - though you might say that's multiple authors. Whenever I quote ICR or Answers In Genesis, most evolutionists choke and have trouble even clicking the link. Walt Brown's work is untainted yet, so I can post links to it that evolutionsts have a chance of reading. If evolutionists were more open minded about considering alternative theories, then perhaps I'd be able to present a wider number of people's works.
You are missing the point. People were talking about how if light slowed at a constant pace you should be able to beat it in a pushbike in a couple of years. The assumption in that comment was that light decreased at a fixed, static rate. I was merely saying that it could decrease in the manner I suggested. There is no evidence for that any more than constant as far as I can tell.
"As an aside, I wonder how many creationists out there have realized that even if some form of creationism is true, that it doesn't prove anything about their individual religions. In other words, even if the universe was created, that doesn't mean that it was created by the God of Abraham, or by Brahma, etc, etc, etc."
Yes I have considered that and I am well aware that if creationism was proven to be true that there would not be a mass renewing of people to Christianity. The three most viable religions if creationism is proven true are:
* Judaism
* Christianity
* Islam
Along with all the cults under those (such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses). As for other religions, Hinduism teaches a universe trillions of years old. New Agers teach in the Masters who have guided the evolution of mankind over the years.
Interestingly enough, almost every religion (including Hinduism) has a concept of there being one Creator God. It seems like mankind as a whole understands that we have a Creator. It's just the question of what service, if any, is owed to Him. His nature and His revealed truth. There are very few in the world that deny the existence of one God above all the other gods.
Anyway, enough droning on for me.
Challenge
Creation scientists claimed for a while the possibility of the speed of light decreasing. They were hammered about this from every quarter. Now it seems that it might be credible.
A lot of science done seems to be based on the assumption that the universe is billions of years old, and that the earth itself is around 4.5 billion years old (subject to change). Indeed, a lot of dating methods such as c14 rely on assumptions that can't be verified - that would actually be false assumptions if we accept the creationist model including a worldwide flood.
It seems to me that everyone could benefit from the creation vs evolution question being finally answered. Science can only go so far if it is based on a faulty foundation.
So for all you budding evolutionists that are so sure your theory is correct - Dr. Walt Brown proposes a challenge which has never been taken up. A challenge that seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you don't feel you have the skills, then maybe you know others that do. Either way, the longer this challenge goes unanswered, the more certain creationists will feel about their position.
So anyway, Dr Walt Brown has a challenge of a written debate to settle this question. So far argument has been refined to pockets of discussion that don't go far, and books published against each other. This would be a great opportunity if anyone was confident enough in evolution.
And here's a list of excuses you might try to use to avoid this challenge:
Excuses - pick one or roll your own
At any rate, STOP treating creationists like children. I have had many evolution discussions and there is very little evidence for evolution at all. The weight certainly seems to be on the creationist side (and yes I am biased). There is certainly enough evidence for creation theory to make it credible, and not the realm of fairy tales. At least, before you feel tempted to call creationism a fairy tale, consider the following:
20 problems
Not all of us who believe in creationism do so blindly. At least understand (because very few people I've argued with understand the creationist position - they just know we think that the earth is young and there was a flood. That's it) our position and consider it properly. When I see a creationist argument I think to myself automatically, "If I believed evolution, how would I answer this?". That is because I understand evolution, at least as well as the next person. But no-one seems to understand the creationist position.
Slashdot Post
Why can't it decrease in speed following a formula like y=x^2 where x=speed of light and y= time passed since the origin of the universe? In which case we would expect light to steady out to an almost constant rate eventually, with a huge decrease in speed near the beginning.
Oops, my mistake sorry :) I had a quick look through, missed that bit.
Thanks.
I should really check with my parents accountant to find out if the Quicken/Quickbooks software is the only financial software he supports. That would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?
I've never heard of sprintf() being insecure. If it is so dangerous why isn't there a warning in the man file recommending the use of snprintf()? That way at least people have a chance of seeing that it is insecure.
I think my mum might even be pleased. The press release says "full support for QuickBooks will be forthcoming in the near future". After that I'll have everything my mother needs.
I've been slowly drawing my mother over to Linux. I'm using it and say "Mum come and look at this". And I show her this feature (the updated weather icon in gnome) or that feature, and she says "Can I do that?". So I reply "Sorry mum, you're using windows."
Perhaps soon I'll be able to switch her over at work. She needs quicken and quickbooks for her work since we send that file format off to the accountant.
As I said to another post, listening to e-mails is just one of a few human solutions. Another alternative is to have the e-mails projected directly onto your eye (ala a previous slashdot story). This way no-one can look over your shoulder :) It will have to be a human interface with multiple methods of using it. Busy doing something? Have the e-mails read out to you. Quicker at reading? Have it projected onto your eye to view it. Want to share it? Use the same projecter (a very small portable device) to show it on your wall, or a specially prepared monitor/interface like those in minority report.
Regarding computer programming, this new interface is just that - an interface. You could easily have access points to plug in a traditional keyboard or some other typing device to actually get down to the source code level and modify the code that runs all the hardware. It's just that most people won't need that keyboard.
You are just adding new functionality to the existing technology. I'm talking about a change of lifestyle, the way we think of computers. You don't like your e-mails being read out? They can be projected directly onto your retina for your viewing pleasure. No-one else will be able to look over your shoulder when you do that. The point is that it will change computers.
Internet browsing will be different too. I can't say how it will be different, but the current setup is less natural than it will be 10 years from now.
Hmm, I have heard that about some people being unable to think in 3d...but if we keep the concepts and shapes simple and familiar, it shouldn't be more difficult than real life.
The reason they came and went is a number of reasons - technology capability, cost, etc. Eg, video phones would have been expensive and quite useless. They don't give much added advantage. The potential for technology in the near future will be very different to the past, things considered unfeasable previously I think will become natural.
Fuck that, I love being able to choose browsers and window managers. Some people love KDE and GNOME - I can't stand it! Enlightenment has been my favourite window manager almost since I started using Linux - Afterstep was my first.
Everyone should drive the same car with the same features. Everyone should wear the same clothes. Everyone should have the same house so plumbers and electricians know where to find everything, and kitchen solutions can be optimised for that house. Everyone can have the same pet so vets only need knowledge for that particular breed. Everyone can listen to the same music so that bands know what will be popular and what won't. And so on. You know all this to be rubbish because people love choice. I love choice. Don't you dare take away from me the choice that Linux has given me.