In the experience of people I talk to about computers, roughly: * 40% seem open to hearing about Linux - they just want something easy to use, cheap, etc * 20% are skeptical at first then very impressed when they see it ("If I set up a new business I'd definately use Linux") * 30% would use it if it had the games they wanted * 10% adamantly support Microsoft without knowing anything about it - perhaps just for the fun of opposing me
So in my experience, Linux has a very bright future for the desktop, at least for those people I encounter daily.
But I think the desktop is dead anyway. Rasterman says that embedded is the future - the level ground. This is true, but there is another path.
Do you think 10 years from now we are going to be using desktops too? I doubt it very much. Minority report perhaps gives us a snippet of the future. Computer "desktops" will go 3D. Maybe we will control our computer with virtual reality gloves and speak commands, or perhaps even use our mind for some simple tasks.
The future of computers will hopefully be power covered by simplicity. The way we think and use computers will change over time. We won't think "I need to use the computer to check e-mail". E-mail will become a daily part of life. Perhaps your house will say to you "You have 3 new messages". And then you respond "bring them up", and in front of you is projected an image of the e-mail, which could possibly be video rather than text. This kind of interface has no desktop. It is a simple and human way of interacting with computers. Desktops are cludgy things that expose people to some of the power of a comptuer that they don't need to see. What we need is a solution that has the simplest possible interface (like the e-mail scenario I gave) but has the potential for the user to hack it at it's base level (open source philosophy). That way the simplicity makes computers a powerful part of everyday life, but also gives the power to those who want/need to fiddle with the settings.
I think the desktop is dead. It's like having 4 remotes with 20 buttons each. In a house you hide your electricy cables, and you hide your water pipes. With computers however we expose people to desktops - which I believe are a patchwork solution. Eventually there will be no "computer" that people fight to use. There will be no monitor or keyboard. The interface will be more natural and human, integrated into the house or building.
Basically, desktops are getting close to their highest potential. The next phase will be something different, something that won't be solved by a new Windows release or by KDE 6.2 - it will require a shift in thought about how computers work, which will start off ugly at first and then progress into something beautiful looking. But as long as we have the desktop, our way of thinking will be constrained to 2 dimensions, which doesn't allow for the vast potential of computers in the near future.
If you already know how to program in C/C++ or Java, or some other C-like language, then the best place to learn php really is the php.net website and the online documentation. It contains a brief summary of the language, and how to use it - it's quick to read through and gives you most of the information you need.
I have found it incredibly useful, and searching for functions a breeze. If you need to find out a function to perform a particular task, then do a quick google search or go onto irc.openprojects.net or some other server and join a channel and ask for a function - then look that function up on php.net.
If you don't know programming, then a resource I have found useful for web based programming (mysql & php specifically) is www.devshed.com, with tutorials on a few different topics.
For game related programming and a number of topics related to that (opengl, directx, ai, etc) then www.gamedev.net is excellent. For opengl you can't go past NeHe Productions.
It's amazing how Microsoft on their IIS website can make an inferior product look so nice, friendly, usable and safe - when there is a free alternative that lacks the slick advertising but that is a much superior product, especially in security.
Linux is a safe haven. It's like that story from church about building your house on the rocks rather than the sand, so that when the tide rises you will be safe. Or like people who built a bomb shelter. Or like those who painted their doors with lamb's blood so the angel of death would pass over their house and not kill the first-born son.
I am immortal! The tide of red sweeps daily over the internet and I didn't even get my shoes dirty!
Just a side note, if anyone ever came up with a virus that was as devastating to apache as code red was to IIS, I think Linux would be doomed. If you expect something to fail (Microsoft products) then you don't care too much when they do. But if a product is touted as being absolutely secure and stable (Linux/Apache) then when it does screw up big, it will probably be it's death. The higher up you are, the further you have to fall.
The only source of that truth is in a book, written by people who had virtually no scientific knowledge. Other books, some written before and some after Genesis, give different numbers. Traditional Hindu cosmology indicates that the universe is trillions of years old. Why should an impartial scientist give the Torah/Bible more credence than the Koran or the Rig Veda?
Tell me why I should expect an atheist scientist to give credence to creationist theories if they had supporting evidence? Everyone has biases, and a discussion of origins is inherently philosophical and will include people's biases. When I said "I am someone who has to know the truth about everything - so I search for answers. If that truth happens to be that God created the world merely 6,000 years ago, then so be it" I was meaning evidence besides the Bible that affirms the Biblical record, not just the Bible alone. Clearly, if outside evidence showed the Bible dates were wrong I would have to accept that.
What happens when you study the watch and find contradictions? Ice cores [talkorigins.org] indicate an Earth well over 100,000 years old at an absolute minimum.
We either analyse those contradictions to see if they are perceived or literal. If real then we must reject the theory that contradicts the facts. I can quote for you dating methods which produce an earth age of a maximum 60 million years old, or 6,000 years old for our common ancestor, or other dating methods which produce a young earth. More about ice cores later. Follow this link and hit the next button to read various dating methods which produce very young maximum ages (remember that the age can usually be anything younger than this, but shows an absolute maximum). So this shows that the evolutionists watch has contradictions.
Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 1024 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 1027 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks (quote from talkorigins.org).
Question: is there any mechanism known (and I am ignorant) by which molecules may be created initially in order to form amino acids? You demonstrated that some amino acids form naturally, but what about the molecules they are formed from - do all 20 amino acids naturally form, or only some? Comment on this: it talks about amino acids forming long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks, but proteins tend to break down rather than form naturally: "To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated. However, the early oceans or atmosphere would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between them would rarely occur. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids. Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth's heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed. The many attempts to show how life might have arrived on earth have demonstrated (a) the futility of that effort, (b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life, and (c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life. " Reference There is much more in the reference you gave on probabilities that I don't understand. I don't really want to comment on it because there's a fair bit more I obviously need to learn in that situation.
Of course, that isn't an issue anyway, amino acids can form far more rapidly than that, even in the constraints of a lab experiment, let alone the oceans of Earth or however other similar planets exist. Only one planet in the universe has to end up with life for that life to then wonder how it got there, right? Hey, I managed to get this post back on-topic for the original thread, sort of.
Note that the improbabilities article I quoted said under the best possible conditions with the most favourable temperature - indicating that this improbability was calculated taking into account the natural formation of amin acids - or that's how I see it. I guess we'd have to contact the creation-science author to be sure.
The interactions are not random though - thanks to the structure of the atoms involved, fairly complex carbon-based molecules are inevitable.
Remember that some processes work against evolution - organisms tend to move from complex to simple, proteins tend to break down to amino acids rather than form, etc So while randomness makes evolution impossibly unlikely, and non-random interactions make it likely - something like this tendancy to work opposite to evolution makes it impossible, not unlikely. And we only need to find one step in the evolutionary trail where the trend is the opposite of what is needed to demonstrate evolution as impossible.
Only one had to evolve for life to exist, and to point out its improbability after the fact is meaningless. Like in poker - the odds of drawing any particular set of cards are very poor, but the odds of drawing a 'winning hand' are not.
Agreed, and I try to keep this in mind.
It's just that I believe the design process was guided, not 'miracled', and that it took place in a natural, physical way that we can understand if we study it.
Since I believe that creation 6000 years old earth is true, I also believe that it is logical and understandable, that everything we observe can make sense and fit into that model. Creation was a once off event and the world was set into motion - we were given desire to reproduce so that God did not have to tell us, the earth produced fruit and vegetables for us to eat of it's own power, etc. But we also believe that the existence of the universe is inexplicably tied to our Creator - and without Him nothing can exist. Evolution seems to me to be nonsensical, and to me that creates a world that is irrational and not understandable, but you feel that way about young earth creationism. Again, subjective argument:)
Asking 'why' to evolution almost always yields the answer 'because it helps them reproduce'. Asking 'why' about creation almost always yields the answer 'because it is part of God's plan'. That's just the different nature of scientific reasoning versus religious reasoning.
Really? Some questions for evolution: * Why do humans shun rape as a sickening act? * Why do humans practice self-sacrifice for the love of another that is not necessarily their own offspring? * Why do humans sometimes feel prone to compassion towards the weak and unpriviliged? These three questions of the human mind and heart seem completely contradictory to evolution. And why would God use one method to create His masterpiece (murder, rape, greed, selfishness, cruelty, etc) and then later declare these attributes to be sickening and morally wrong? It is obvious that those things happened and were necessary for natural selection, yet under evolution you must presume that they were natural and good processes (Genesis 1:31).
I've enjoyed the site you provided - I think I've seen it before but never explored in great detail. I wish they had a search function, because I couldn't find an answer to the ice cores there. If you know where it is, let me know.
From what I could see ice core dating was based on assumptions of other dating methods (such as C14), so you should probably check out the section on the site that deals with those dating methods and then extend the conclusions from that to ice-core dating. On the main site in the bottom left corner is an index which can be useful. Just go to http://www.creationscience.com instead of the links I give you, since the links I give you don't have frames.
I've found some other interesting tidbits on there. Some really aren't good arguments, or are based on theories or measurements that the scientific community has already revised or discarded. Some of them raise legitimate questions, for which I am still trying to find answers. I hope you find the site I linked to every bit as fascinating.
I think if you follow the footnotes you will see that there is more depth than is commonly accepted by evolutionists. Evolutionists tend to say that something has been "debunked" when it really has only in their mind. I think that evolutionists don't fully comprehend the creation theory and consider it. When reading creation information they must think with the mind of a creationist so they can see how everything fits together. I have to think like an evolutionist to fully appreciate their arguments when I read their websites - and I feel that evolutionists often miss this.
The reason we fight for dominance of Linux is not for the Linux OS specifically, but for the opensource/gpl philosophy in general.
Although it remains true (thanks to lgpl, both our saviour and in the future our death) that commercial software will become more common in linux when it becomes dominant.
So Linux may rise and fall, but hopefully the philosophy of shared source will be ingrained into the mind of the population.
I wish that were true. I love the browser situation on linux at the moment. There is no "best browser" that everyone has to use in order for pages to render correctly. I can choose lynx, galeon, mozilla, netscape, konqueror, opera and more as I please. I don't like it when I'm forced to choose.
Honestly, I'd be happy if Linux never became the dominant operating system, as long as the above situation was true for operating systems - the freedom to choose the operating system that I prefer, and the one best for the job.
But our enemy is agressive and will settle for nothing more than our total death, and for that reason I want Linux to dominate - better to have my preference as the only viable option than to have my enemy as the only option. If Microsoft could ever be satisfied with filling it's role the best it could, and working with standards so people can choose, then fine. But we all know that won't happen, so that's why I say: Death to Microsoft!
I am someone who has to know the truth about everything - so I search for answers. If that truth happens to be that God created the world merely 6,000 years ago, then so be it. It is the truth, so it must be logical, and therefore we can study and learn the intricacies of the "watch" and appreciate the amazing work of God.
Also, did you read my reference about proteins tending to break down into amino acids, the opposite of what is necessary for evolution? God would have had to have performed a miracle a minute for billions of years for evolution to have occurred - that seems far less logical and unrealistic than the creation approach.
On the website link you provided, a little bit through it talks about handedness of amino acids, so you may be interested in this.
Amino acids look pretty simple, and that improbability statement I showed you, when you are doing something a billion times a second for 20 billion years, I think that amino acids would be formed more than once:) I think if we considered that amino acids naturally formed into that equation (if it wasn't already) then the chances would probably still be insanely high (thanks for backing up your claim with what seems like viable research).
Superb argument. It is equally true that you only find support for evolution on an evolutionists website. And don't quote some dribble about most scientists believing evolution - I have only been made aware of one study of beliefs, and it seems that it's split pretty much down the middle Read question 4, and follow the footnote for the results of the study. Your hordes of evolutionary counterparts are probably just domestic science teachers and ignorant parents.
Wrong. The mitochondrial "Eve" lived somewhere around 200,000 years ago, according to archaeology.org [archaeology.org]. Shocked?
Arg! You are the second person to give that exact article, and the third person to give an article like that. I'll say to you what I said to the others: Your article is out of date. A new discovery was made in 1997 that demonstrated mutation rates in mtDNA up to 20 times faster! Your article is dated 1996, therefore was written before this new discovery, therefore outdated! This just gets repetitive and annoying. Here is the article for your reference
Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the moon. But anyway, the old chestnut about depth of moon dust has been debunked quite thoroughly.
Well, I can't say much of this except that evolutionists appeared to scramble for an argument, by saying that beneath the thin layer of dust is rocks, or by coming up with their own measurements for the intake of dust. I would love to read the article in which the new evolutionist supporting dust intake rates were calculated, and compare it with the creationist ones. You may be interested to read this article.
Wrong. Learn something about dominant and recessive traits. (Are you listening carefully?)
Ooh, great argument, I'm now convinced I was wrong! Seriously though, where was I wrong about dominant and recessive traits?
However, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt one of two things: 1) that you get all your information from creationist tracts, and outdated ones at that or 2) you are a troll.
Unlike you, who gets his information from outdated evolutionist websites
What's that most universally observed and verified law? I think it's the law of biogenesis: "Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis."
As far as I was aware, life has NEVER been created, even in a laboratory. Life always comes from life - this is universally observed and has never been proven false.
Can you find a reference for me to back up the following statement? Preferably one on the web so I don't have to purchase a book: "More complex things like amino acids also appear to be readily formed when their constituents are put together and energy is added." To read more about amino acids and proteins, follow this link: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces32.html#1009444 And please do read it - I would love to know what you think. I get this feeling that people don't follow my links, even though I have the courtesy to follow theirs.
Besides, to me, the idea of a God who intricately designed all these individual parts and set up the parameters and laws of the universe in such a way that life was inevitable, is far more awe-inspiring than the idea of God just saying "poof" and the universe popping up in six days. Maxwell's electromagnetic field equations seem a far cry more stunning testament to a Creator than a simple "let there be light". Don't constrain God and His Creation to the simplistic fables of people thousands of years ago.
I don't like God being constrained by the simplistic fables of today - evolution. Evolution is not a new idea. It has been around as long as the hills, I think, and will always exist in some form. The majesty of God is clearly evidence under a creationist model. There are so many amazing things to be observed and contemplated, especially under a creationist model. It is useless to say what you just said - it's merely the subjective emotions of one man/woman. You find evolution more awe-inspiring, I find creatino more awe-inspiring. What does that prove?
I have to apologise to you for being rude. Sorry. Was a bit worked up over posts by a previous author that I carried over to you.
Thanks, genuinely, for pointing me to the original article. I have made a few observations reading Ann Gibbon's article that were also made by the author of the creation science article: 1. The original mtDNA mutation rate was based on the assumption of millions of years - an assumption of a common human/chimpanzee ancestor (of apes) 5 million years ago. So, if this 5million year date was incorrect, then so was the original mutation rate given by evolutionists. This rate is now brought into question, leading to the conclusion that the original age for the common ancestor was false. 2. The new results seem to indicate that mutations occur at a much faster rate. For an evolutionist this means calibration of various dates. For a creationist this further pushes the point that evolutionist dating methods are HIGHLY flawed and almost always seem to contradict each other by a large margin. 3. The reason why the author says no-one believes mitochondrial eve is 6000 years ago is simply because that contradicts everything else they believe about the age of the earth. The logic is like this: "We know that our common ancestor with chimpanzee's is more than 6,000 years old, so this date must be wrong. We just don't know why yet". However, the current results of mtDNA mutation rates appear to conform perfectly to the creationist model.
So you see from my perspective now, that this article supported the creation science authors comments perfectly...that the most recent mutation rates supported the Bible of an Eve 6,000 years ago, and also what the author claimed was encountered with this new date - disbelief. That is what it is, the belief that 6,000 years is not possible, therefore the new date must be wrong. Of course, for the creationist this date is entirely possible so we don't reject it. We have no religious reasons to reject it, while an evolutionist has many religious reasons too. Hence the statement: "No one thinks that's the case" - since a 6,000 year old mitochondrial eve would be revolutionary.
The creation science author is well aware that Ann Gibbons does not support a creationist model - but he quotes from evolutionists since evidence from their mouth is the greatest evidence, because they can't be accused of bias towards creationism. He states so in his introduction I believe on the website, or somewhere. He uses this article since it gives the facts of mtDNA but says that while the evolutionists reject this new study because they don't believe it is possible, the creationist sees this as one of many proofs of a young earth.
Of course, mtDNA is one of many, as I just said. I gave it as an example, and the issue of creation and evolution goes much deeper than that - and much deeper than can be adequately studied on slashdot.
So I hope this clears it up. Sorry again for my rudeness. If you still have some confusion about how this supports creationism, or why you thik it still is quoting the author out of context, let me know and I'll see if we can agree.
This assumption that life must have evolved elsewhere if it did on earth is utterly ridiculous. Consider the chances of the simplest possible single celled life being created. Now try and imagine this happening twice in the same universe. Ridiculous. (and natural selection plays no role since we are talking about the simplest life): "To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probabilitya that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is far less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter. From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a "simple" form of life, such as bacteria. Next, we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all atoms, then let them form new links. If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The oddsb are much less than one chance in 10^99,999,999,873. Your odds of drawing at random one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms is about one chance in 10^112--much better. "
I found a link to the primary literature: http://hordeum.msu.montana.edu/finger /mitochodrial %20DNA.html
And I feel quite safe in claiming that the Creation Science author did not quote out of context. His claim was: "A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than previously thought. Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago."
He provided 4 references for this, which you can check here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/F AQ14.ht ml#1048088
The authors claim was that the mutation rates were actually 20 times more than previously thought. He then quoted from Ann Gibbons the text you gave. Ann Gibbons goes on to say exactly what you said: "No one thinks that's the case". Ann Gibbons explains that scientists would be unwilling to adjust our structured histories of our recent ancestors. It has so many implications that contradict their mindset that "No one thinks that's the case". In other words, they have no proof that it's not - indeed the Creation Science author in the footnotes I gave mentions one of the solutions that evolutionists have given for this new problem, but is insufficient. Read it yourself.
So I fail to see how this article was taken out of context. Ann Gibbons stated the fact of what the creation science author had said - and also went to talk about the various reasons why scientists are unwilling to accept it - basically because it flies in the face of the history evolutionists have constructed in the last 200,000 years. So put that down in your notebook: * 16/07/02 - Discovered that mtDNA supports the creationist model. This is a problem for evolutionists which they have yet been unable to answer. Ann Gibbson's article verifies that this is a legitimate problem for various fields.
Please, in future if you are going to claim that a quote was out of context - check that that is true first. That way I don't have to waste 30 minutes of my life correcting a mistake that didn't have to be made.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Like minded people gather together. There's nothing new about that.
Btw, insults do not constitute arguments. You can make ignorant statements like "Close your eyes and bleat to each other as much as you wish. That's how religion stays alive anyway" all you want - but in the end it should only be logic and evidence that convince people, not intimidation.
If you believe that religion is a child's story I'd love to see you stand up to serious scrutiny. Maybe you can do better than Black Parrot, who appears to have flown away - unless you are him, hiding under "Anonymous Coward" so you don't have to answer the problems I posed to you.
Do you have a slashdot login name so I can recognise you in the future?
Also, have you been lurking and reading this thread? As you might have guessed, I've found his misrepresentations and unwillingness to examine evidence for a creationist position (while all the time complaining there is no evidence) very frustrating.
He claims there is no evidence. When you say "here is some", he turns his back to you and says "where? I can't see it".
Please oh please oh please READ what I write properly, and check my references!
It's hardly a surprise that you're frustrated, since when you're out of touch with reality the universe rarely conforms to your expectations - pretty much by definition.
I am frustrated at how idiotic your arguments are and your simple inability to comprehend what I am saying. I am NOT, as you might presume, frustrated by your superior logic and amazing weight of evidence. That is something that exists only in your mind - hence the cause of my frustration.
I wasn't talking about the validity of the claims. Let me put this simply for you: You: "You spend no time presenting any evidence for creation" Me: "Look at these three occasions when I tried to present evidence." You: "Look at your evidence, it's all faulty" Me: "That's not the point. You said I didn't give any evidence. I'm showing you that I did, whether it's faulty or not".
Get it? I doubt it somehow.
I get frustrated with idiots who think they know what you are saying, but in fact don't understand you.
Off-topic (since the above was showing you that I did try to give evidence, not that the evidence was valid). READ THE ARTICLE I GAVE YOU ON MITOCHONDRIAL EVE! How hard can it be to follow a simple weblink? mDNA shows that all human females had a common ancestor about 6,000 years ago. GET IT? Evolutionary theory says that Aboriginees in Australia have been isolated for at least 40,000 years. CAN YOU SEE THE PROBLEM? Can you? I showed you that your stupid article on mDNA was old and based on outdated information. Did you bother to comment? No, you prefer comments on the easter bunny and how silly creationism is, even though you can't back up your claims.
And the moon. Of course there's no mention of dust on the moon in the Bible. It's a prediction of expectations based on a certain model of the universe. This model says the universe is around 6000 years old. As such, the model would predict there to be very little moon dust. Your model states the moon is millions of years old. Therefore, your model predicts that there would be layers and layers of moondust - enough to sink a ship. Do you see the contradiction? Do you get it? I doubt it though, coming from someone who thought the chances of getting a random order from shuffling a deck of cards was impossible (when it was actually 100%).
So...maybe now you will understand, but I still doubt it. Simply put: Both mDNA and moon dust point to a young earth and young moon. They defy the model of evolution . I know how quick you are to forget, so quickly again this is why mDNA defies the evolution model. mDNA shows that all females have a common ancestor about 6,000 years ago. Evolution, however, says that Aboriginees in Australia have been isolated for at least 40,000 years. And I'm sure it's not just Australia. Let me also explain the moon again, just in case you are quick to forget that I am showing you how this evidence fits the expectations of only one theory: creation. Evolution predicted that the moon would have very deep layers of moon dust, possibly a mile deep, because the moon is so old - has no erosion or wind to get rid of the dust. FACT: the moon had very little dust, which is perfectly consistent with a young moon! See the problem?
And as for languages, give me a reference on the web. I am wiling to read and consider. But I'm not going to buy a book any more than I'd expect you to go out and buy a book on my recommendation. Back up your claims with evidence, don't just make them. I cited references for mine - you should do the same. Prove to me that linguists think language evolved from simple to complex. You pretended that I compared Sanskrit with English - that's ridiculous - they are completely different. Under a Biblical model they would have two different roots from the tower of Babel - which you also misunderstand: * prior to tower of babel all humans speak one language * God scatters people by changing their languages. The new languages are formed * The languages are not innate but can be learned. As a result they have changed over time from the original forms at the tower of babel. Babel was a ONCE OFF event.
It's hardly a surprise that you're frustrated, since when you're out of touch with reality the universe rarely conforms to your expectations - pretty much by definition.
Almost everything I see conforms to my expectations! There is a great deal of things in the world I would have to regard as illogical if I was to accept an evolutionary model of the world. Stop hiding behind insults and read the links I gave! Or are you afraid that your feeble mind will explode with too much information? I had the decency to read the reference you gave - which turned out to be outdated. How about you reciprocate the favor and read the references I gave?
Stick to the facts. Stop trying to win your arguments by comparisons of creationism to fantasy stories. Just makes me think you are an idiot all the more.
If you skip everything else, answer this question for me: Why are you so afraid to read the references I give? Why don't you bother? They are short, so it won't fry your brain, and it has references from respected journals to satisfy your curiosity. Also answer this question: Why, oh why, didn't you comment on mDNA based on the information I gave? Why didn't you say *woops, my article was based on outdated information, sorry*? What if another creationist says "mDNA shows an Eve about 6000 years ago"? Will you give them the same article I gave you, and neglect to mention it's based on outdated and false information? Or will you have integrity and address the problem based on current data?
You cannot believe how incredibly frustrated I am by your posts. You misquote me, don't bother to read my evidence, misunderstand almost everything. And then, if I'm enough of a sucker, I'll correct you again and you will do the same again. And the cycle will go on.
I am deadly serious - you are a complete idiot the way you misread what I have said. Small example: You quote the horrendously outdated talkorigins.org reference on mDNA. I read it. It had the same problem as the other quote - it was outdated. Let me quote the facts for you again (maybe you will actually read this time): "A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than previously thought. Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago." 1997!! Your article is dated 1995! It's out of date! Fancy catching an honest evolutionist using outdated information - I thought that was a creationist's habits! And trust me, a 6000 year old mitochondrial Eve is far too young for evolution - Aboriginees in Australia are supposed to have been isolated for at least 40,000 years.
I just had an idea. If we are going to get anywhere...we are going to keep going around in circles unless we put down points of fact and evidence, predictions about what each theory expects to see - then adress them. In this slashdot form it is easy for you to forget explanations I give and then accuse me of doing something I haven't done. So what do you say? Up for the challenge of a formal written debate? It would involve following up some references to make sure that they are being quoted properly and examining each alley properly to make sure the assumptions and conclusions are correct...
Sadly, in spite of the big talk, you did not actually present any evidence for creation. As with virtually every other creationist argument you spend most of your time trying to explain away the evidence for evolution rather than trying to present evidence for creation.
Whether or not you agreed with the evidence, I cited at least three pieces for creation: * Evolution of language * Dust on the moon * mitochondrial Eve Read carefully again - You said I quote no evidence. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, but I did give some evidence.
Evolution of language: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Referenc esandNotes13.html#1012325 And do me a favor of reading it. Bear in mind, if you want to show me counter evidence, make sure it's actual evidence. There's a difference between saying "It may have happened like this" and "From the evidence this seems the most likely way it happened". I don't want anything from the first category - such as the ridiculous stories of how the moon came to be under an evolutionary model.
In fact this may help evolution along since it increases diversity in the population by sheilding some "bad" mutations from being selected out. Because what's "bad" today might suddenly be "good" after the big meteor strikes next week.
Yeah, because I'm sure that sufferring from internal bleeding, or your blood being unable to clot, has to be beneficial somewhere. Maybe to spray your opponent with blood so he can't see.
Seriously though, show me a situation of a bad mutation that may be good, in, for example, the event of a meteor strike. An impossible task, I think. But, just to make it really difficult (and realistic), the mutation has to be beneficial AFTER the fallout finishes, since most of the time of a species is spent during calm times, not the exceptional circumstances of a meteor strike.
Ah, this is an even better illustration of the "creationist evidence syndrome". Here you aren't even pretending to give any evidence for creation; you're simply trying to refute evolution.
How about you quote me properly next time huh? I did try to give some evidence which you think you cleverly refuted, and then go on to say I gave no evidence? I have tried to both: A) Give evidence of creation B) Show the irrationality of evolution So STOP MISREPRESENTING ME!! It doesn't matter if my arguments in your eyes were unreasonable. I still attempted what you accuse me of not attempting. I have at one time given evidence of creation, while at another time given problems with evolution. Get over it! I'm sure you do both too! Eg. "We know the earth is old from dating of fossils" (evidence for evolution), and "Those animals could not have fit on the ark" (argument against creation).
The surest sign that creationism is a pseudoscience is that its proponents keep offering arguments long after they have been refuted.
Yes, kind of like how two of you just presented outdated arguments of mitochondrial Eve, huh?
No, it's extraordinary circumstances that decrease genetic diversity, such as the genetic bottleneck that reduced the population of cheetahs to something like 17 in the not too distant past, almost eliminating their genetic diversity in the process.
From a cursory glance, one can see that through natural selection more genetic diversity is lost than is gained. Take a look at humans - we tend to marry people of similar ethnic background. Reduces diversity - and this is in situations where there is no need for us to. That is why people of the same race look similar - there is less diversity, so they show common themes. This could be solved by other races mixing with each other - but that hardly ever happens. There's definately not new diversity being created...but there's certainl reason to believe that we are losing diversity.
Even if that is true (and I've certainly never heard it before), "most" isn't sufficient to disrupt evolution. At worst it would slow things down, but no one says evolution is in any hurry.
On the contrary, this fact about mutations makes evolution impossible. I thought I explained this before. If most mutations are recessive, then to express themselves two partners must possess it. For that to happen (and on average the mutation should be lost in two or three generations - 50% chance the first child gets it, 25% the second, 12.5% the third, etc). For two partners to possess it they must have the same recessive beneficial mutation. Meaning that they must be very closely related - the chance of two cousins having the same beneficial mutation is 6.25%, and then 1.56% for second cousins, 0.39% for third cousins having the same beneficial mutation. Now remember, that for every beneficial mutation (presuming that there is such a thing) there are many more harmful mutations. So, any two parents that have a beneficial recessive mutation in common will also have a number of harmful recessive mutations. And the chance of two people having them in common is much greater (because they are more frequent) than having a beneficial mutation. It doesn't matter if recessive mutations are more frequent than dominant ones anyway - according to evolution, beneficial recessive mutations must have occured, since we have many beneficial recessive genes. The problem is, that the process by which these mutations must survive and express themselves, is the very process that destroys them - evidence, cousins and brother/sister marriages are illegal or warned against (depending where you live) because they more frequently produce mutated offspring (in a bad way) than marriage with people distantly related. And for this reason, recessive mutations could never have arisen through the evolutionary model.
Now, I look forward to the many creative ways you will misunderstand what I said, misquote me, show outdated references, etc.
And now, my turn to talk to you lurkers: discussions on forums rarely produce any fruit - go to http://www.creationscience.com for an excellent collection of creationist understanding and check out http://www.talkorigins.org for an evolutionists safe-haven. I ask that you consider the facts carefully - and remember that stories are not fact unless the evidence supports them and opposes all other theories.
Oh, and I just read your fuller explanation of the deck of cards analogy you must be so proud of. If you shuffle a deck of cards there is a 100% chance that it will produce an order. Duh. There is a 0% chance that you will shuffle it into any particular order you specify before the shuffling. This example is horrible - talking about chances of life occurring under an evolutionary model, we are talking about predicting a particular order before it occurs. Saying "this is the only order possible to produce life" then calculating the chance of that order arising. Did you fail statistics? Try it yourself. Predict an order for the cards, then shuffle them and see how many times it takes you to arrive at that order. You work on the presumption that ANY order of proteins, etc, would produce life. That's just silly.
And thinking of the moon
Hmm, I'm not sure how much longer I should bother feeding the troll. I'll see whether you reply reasonably this time - or whether you continue to misquote me, not bother to read references, misunderstand me, and pretend you won a great victory when you didn't.
And if you want a real challenge, if you have the time, and you know people who are competent in evolution - and you think it is so convincing, why don't you take up this challenge: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ413.h tml
I'm sick of evolution. Do me a favor and stop pretending you have so much evidence. I have looked for it. It's not there. If you want evidence for creation I have given you a website, but you continue to ignore it I'm sure and then go on to say "there is no evidence". Just so you don't miss it: DON'T YOU DARE EVER SAY CREATION HAS NO EVIDENCE UNTIL YOU READ THIS WEBSITE FULL OF EVIDENCE AND REFERENCES. http://www.creationscience.com
You sound like a theistic evolution. I would recommend you spend some time researching the issue - you will be surprised at the amount of evidence for creationism.
Galileo was a minority compared to the ignorance of the Catholic Church. Today creationism is that same minority - we have the burden of evidence, but our opponents fight us for religious reasons (while all the time arguing that that is our weakness).
There are many excellent resources - but the easiest to peruse and most well documented I have found is the book at this website (which is online): http://www.creationscience.com
First error: the evolution of language is not part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. You want to know about language, you talk to a linguist, not a biologist.
I am talking about simple facts and arguments. A discussion of origins is philosophical by nature - science tests a claim to verify whether it fits data and observations. Philosophy unites the different branches of science into a logical (or illogical) union. Science describes natural selection. Philosophy describes how it fits in the big picture.
You can't ignore this just because it is not the realm of biology. It's a simple fact.
Prove it. No linguist of note agrees with you. I refer you to 'The Language Instinct' by Steven Pinker.
Actually, I'd like you to prove that. I have a reference that says: "Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages." - http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces16.html#1008968 I'm not going to go out an buy a new book unless you can demonstrate to me - preferably from a website - that your idea has any credibility for me to read more. I'm not interested in more crackpot evolutionary ideas unless I'm going to hear something worthwhile.
Oh, and forget arguments that creation science is a minority. Cite some research: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ414.h tml Apparently, only a very slight majority believe in evolution.
(btw, don't think I'm being thin or something when I quote often from the one website. It is a convenient collection of resources and arguments from a wide variety of resources, many from evolutionists. Just check the footnotes).
Second error: if this was true, where did AIDS come from? (BTW, the correct answer is not, 'God created AIDS to punish homosexuals')
I fail to see the problem. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1333.asp
Third error: nobody of any consequence agrees with you. Here's a reference *you* might want to check:
http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html
Your article was written: Volume 49 Number 5 September/October 1996
You really might want to keep your information up to date. Quote from the reference I gave which I'm almost certain you didn't read:
"A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than previously thought. Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago." So your information is outdated and based on old data. Back to the drawing board I think. And also, the article you gave me wasn't very descriptive. It drew conclusions for you without citing much evidence. Here is the reference for the above new mutation rates, in case you can't bebothered clicking on the footnote yourself: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ14.ht ml#1048088
Though if you read the article yourself, maybe I wouldn't have to spoon feed you this stuff you apparently know so well. (If you are wondering why I'm being so rude, it's because I'm fed up with being treated as a child for something that is completely rational. It is my pursuit to understand all things and be sure that what I believe is true. I hate being put down just because someone thinks they are better. I listen to evidence, not intimidation and emotional displays - I've learned that lesson).
Fourth error: look at the footprints in the Apollo pictures. Plenty of dust there. Read some books on the moon landings: there's plenty about lunar geology in there. Oh, and the reason we are fairly sure the Earth is billions of years old is because rocks brought back from the moon were radioactively dated.
DId you read anything I gave you?? The references I gave clearly stated: "Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust--possibly a mile in thickness." Of course some dust was expected from a creationist unless the moon was 0 years old. The amount of dust there was perfectly consistent with creationist predictions, but totally inconsistent with evolutionary predictions. Note, also, that dust of this kind is also a problem for the age of the earth - but that's another story.
Radiation is also another story. Let's stick to a small area first unless you really want to talk about radiation.
Do me a favor, and read what I have given you before you start making arguments which are adequately addressed in the references I give.
Snipped the rest of the ignorant waffe on the grounds that if this guy can get so many basic facts wrong, there's not much point in listening to anything else he has to say
How convenient. Your arguments were unfounded, and you think you won a victory! Perhaps, now, you will have to consider, properly, the other things I wrote - by actually reading the references I give! And if you still don't believe, follow up the footnotes.
Actually, I am massively familiar with creationist arguments since I believed in young earth creationism when I was much younger.
For some reason, I doubt that very much. You may have at one stage believed young earth creationism, but it doesn't mean you understood it. I'm sure you know many people who have used a computer year after year, and still ask you how to cut&paste or open a file in different programs.
Creationism does not exist to explain the facts. It exists to prove that the biblical account of the Creation is true. It feels it has to do this because Creationism has been on the back foot since people like you lost the ability to have people who disagreed with you, burned at the stake.
May I remind you that Darwin's Origin Of Species presented a theory with no evidence, but some vague observations (about as much as you credit creationists as having - though we have more). Evolutionists today are merely preists of atheism supporting a theory at all cost. It is a philosophy as is creationism, and an illogical one. Again, creationism is not on the back foot. Most people, both those who believe evolution and those who believe creation, have little idea of the theory they promote. The only reference I have seen on actual number of scientists (not school science teachers) that believe evolution is only slightly above 50%. And also, different countries have different laws. In other places in the world people like you could easily be killed for your beliefs - same with mine. Societies rise and fall, and burning heretics - for better or for worse (since I find it undesireable) - will return one day.
You must be opposed.
Then let it begin. We'll see if there's any logic in your beliefs.
1. Tell me of examples of rates of mutation where a beneficial mutation occurs compared to harmful/harmless mutations. Cite an example where such beneficial mutations are shown to take place on enough of a regular basis to be useful. Also, take note of this: most mutations are recessive. That means that natural selection plays no role in the survival of that beneficial genetic mutation. Also take note, that along with the single beneficial recessive mutation a host of harmful recessive mutations are becoming deeply ingrained in a creature's gene pool. This is known as genetic load - the combined disadvantage far outweighs any advantage. Consider this problem also - for a recessive beneficial mutation to express itself, both parents must possess the same gene, and both parents must pass the gene on (1 in 4 chance). Consider also that for two parents to possess the same beneficial mutation, they must have obtained it from a common ancestor - meaning that they likely inherited a number of other harmful recessive mutations - of which there is a much greater chance of the child inheriting them and expressing them. So if a child has both recessive genes of a harmful mutation, he likely has inherited a number of other, harmful recessive genes. This is why close relatives marrying is both essential to evolution, and the very thing that proves it wrong. No-one would argue that brother/sister or cousin marriages produces superior creatures by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, this process reduces diversity and kills evolution. Face facts: genetic diversity decreases under normal circumstances. The history of genetic traits points all creatures to a common ancestor merely 6000 years ago.
2. You want to talk about chances? Try this: "To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probabilitya that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is far less than 1 in 10450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10450, realize that the visible universe is about 1028 inches in diameter.
From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a "simple" form of life, such as bacteria. Next, we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all atoms, then let them form new links. If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The oddsb are much less than one chance in 1099,999,999,873. Your odds of drawing at random one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms is about one chance in 10112--much better. " http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeS cie nces39.html
Read my response to anonymous, the stuff I wrote applies to you too. Saves me typing up two unique posts, hope you are not offended: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ?sid=35727& cid=3869597
I think you are a complete idiot. Why? Because you said: "And that is for the simple reason that creationism is not founded on any factual basis."
This displays your complete ignorance of creationist arguments. I'm sure you are quite aware of the arguments made by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. But tell me, do you really, genuinely, understand the creationist arguments? I don't think so, because if you did you could not make the above statement without deliberately lying.
Creation arguments are very well founded in evidence. Creationism makes some predictions about what should be observed, as does evolution. Let's look at one evolutionary assumption: prediction: Language began as simple grunts or some other simple form of communication, and slowly grew and evolved into a complex form...the most complex form being today. fact: Language in it's earliest form is it's most complex form. It has a much larger vocabulary, better formed grammar, and many more nuances in the language. The most recent forms of language have the least complexity, the smallest vocabulary. So, language is sufferring from entropy, it's getting simpler.
prediction of evolution: mutations should occasionally produce beneficial changes. This is the process by which all genetic traits were formed. fact: over 4000 mutations can be measured without a single beneficial one being found. Bacteria and other rapidly mutating living organisms are found to defy evolution - they never gain new/beneficial attributes. Reference: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces9.html Feel free to check the footnotes on this website to verify the claims. You may be surprised, because I'm almost certain that you know nothing of the facts - only what you've been spoon fed by your atheist priests. So, if mutations never produce beneficial mutations (or even if it was only 1 beneficial mutation for every 4000 harmful/harmless ones) that is nowhere near enough to let evolution happen. Quick, pull out your evolutionary wild-card! Make the age of the earth older! After all you can give yourself as much time as you need.
Let's look at some creationist assumptions assumption: earth is only around 6,000 years old fact: mitochondrial dna has a set number of mutations over a period of time. Looking at the difference between the mtdna between two women, you can calculate how far back they came from the same woman (after all, evolution or creation, we all have a common ancestor). Using these mutation rates, all women on the earth have a common ancestor around 6000 years ago. Shocked? How about you verify this fact yourself: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ok/FAQ13.ht ml Don't forget to check the footnotes if you don't believe it. Of course, this is not the only evidence of a young earth, but for brevity I will cite only one. If you need more, just ask and I'll oblige.
Ooh, here's a good evolutionary assumption: prediction: since the moon is millions of years old, there should be a thick layer of dust on it (after all, there is no wind or erosion for the dust to settle). Fact: there was almost no dust on the surface of the moon when man first landed on it. Looks like a young earth! http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ AstroPhy sicalSciences47.html Please, again, don't forget to check the footnotes.
I'm sure you have many "amazing" arguments on why creationism is stupid. But I'm betting you don't understand the issue.
Example: Creationists also believe natural selection occurs. It's just that we have a much better explanation of it. A creationist believes that most of our genetic traits were created originally by God 6000 years ago in the first created kinds (for humans, Adam & Eve). All the new ones are mutations, and 99.99% are harmful/useless. Now, let's say a bear had the genes for white fur and brown fur at the same locus. It's offspring only inherit one of the two. It's mother is the same. So out of four children, one will have two white fur genes, two will have white and brown fur genes, while one will have two brown fur genes. Now (are you listening carefully? I'm about to destroy a common evolutionists misunderstanding of evolution in action) the one that had all white fur genes would have a much better chance of surviving in a snowy environment. So, it and all the other bears that inherited white fur are the ones most likely to survive. SO, when it comes time for the white bears to have children, there are ONLY white fur genes to inherit. So, adaptation occurs - at the cost of diversity. This is what we can observe - adaptation but definately not through new genes - in fact, diversity is lost until species become specialised. The only way to increase diversity is to get mixed kinds to breed (eg, African's, Asians, American's, etc to all intermarry).
So, I hope you understand now. This is stuff that is observed and verified. It is not the realm of guesswork but on solid, verifiable observances.
Now, this kind of stuff is what creationist arguments predict, and it is what they observe. It is the opposite of what evolution predicts, because diversity is lost.
This has been tested, these facts of life are used by farmers. A particular sugar plant I think, was selectively bred (I hope you know what that means, it's like man-led selection). The ability for the sugar plant to produce greater crops was increased over a period of 100 years until it reached it's maximum ability - then no amount of selective breeding could produce greater results. Why? Because of that observable fact that I described above - diversity is lost to the point where there is only one set of characteristics to inherit. If you want, I can find the reference to that for you. But I'd have to hunt a little.
Just so you know, I've barely touched on the surface of overwhelming evidence for creation and overwhelming evidence for the complete irrational nature of evolution. Slashdot is suited to snippets only, not in depth discussions. If you want further details, feel free to peruse the excellent resource website I linked to a couple of times: http://www.creationscience.com - don't be afraid of it's name...overcome that fear boundary and find out if your beliefs are rational or not.
As you may or may not guess, I get very tired of idiots pretending that there is no evidence for creation. Makes me want to say rtfm or stfw. Because it's all out there, you've just closed your mind off to understanding it (note I don't say "believing", because I have less of an issue if you actually understand the issues but still reject it).
You say that creationism is a wild card! Bwahahaha!
How old is the earth? 4.5 billion years. Dinosaurs were around 70million years ago. Criticism: woah, that doesn't sound like long enough given the improbability of evolution. Reply: well, we don't know for sure, maybe it was longer.
You watch, the earth will get older and older as evolutionary wild-card explanations are used more and more often.
Common evolution wild cards: 1. We're talking about millions of years 2. Chance did it (creationist equivalent: God did it). Even if the chance is 1 in 10^2000000 for humans to evolve (according to Carl Sagan), chance still must have done it.
Well, I think it is very good that you question these things. I have little patience for people who believe something "just because". I have to know and understand something - have evidence for it, proof of it. I can't just believe something. For that reason I am always willing to listen to those hard questions or criticisms people have against what I believe, where others would answer with something useless.
I think you would find that my beliefs differ radically from most people who have that 'just in case' attitude, or who believe 'just because'. While most believe that Christianity can't be proved in a rational way, I believe that it is completely rational and logical.
My parents were giving around $20,000 a year to the church every year.
I often feel the same way. Christians/members of religion often become caught up in the delusion that donations towards their church, building, etc, is actually useful. They become wrapped up in helping maintain a building, and as such don't do anything useful. This is not always true - our church offers counselling services, free to anyone who can't afford it...but I still see people who I feel are caught up in serving the building and the structure, and as a result doing nothing useful.
I'll give you an analogy of how I see faith. It's based on an analogy I've heard before. You see a tightrope walker take a wheelborough over a canyon on a rope. He does it with ease, not even close to falling over. He then fills the wheelborough with bricks, and performs just as well. A third time he puts two dogs in it, and crosses without a problem. Next, he asks you if you would be willing to travel across with him.
This is faith - you have seen with your own eyes evidence that this man is capable...but you may still lack faith in him to help you. Faith in Jesus comes from knowledge of His existence and ability to save you, but trust in something He promises to do.
What most people say is "here is a canyon. Now trust me, there is a man standing there, there is a rope, and a wheelborough. We have been told this invisible man and wheelborough is there and is capable of crossing. Would you be willing to hop in and cross with us?". That is what most people seem to teach, but it's not based on any rational grounds - you have no reason to believe any of it.
I think other religions have a lot to teach, such as Taoism, but I also believe there are a lot of lies in it. That is why, like with most human teachers, you have to learn to sift the good from the bad.
I'm pretty sure I could answer all your difficult questions, or at least satisfactoraly address them (eg, if you say "Where did God come from?" I can equally ask you "Where did the universe come from?" (big bang is unsatisfactory, since that must have had a beginning too)).
Thanks for sharing your story anyway, gives me more of a glimpse of yourself. I grew up in a Christian home, but my parents are nothing like what I am and what I am becoming. I always believed, but never questioned until about 5 years ago. At that point my life turned around, and it became important to understand and answer all those questions in my mind, in the minds of others, and that I might one day have.
I think I've been blessed by God. I've asked many questions that for others they would not have found an answer, but for me God provided me the truth in time. I can look back now on my life and think of the things I used to believe, and realise that if I had started to question them, I would have had no satisfactory answer. Now I have been given the answer before the question arose.
I had a rebellious period about the same time as I started to question. Most of it was directed at school: I was fed up with studying things I already knew, and being unable to learn the things I wanted (computers, foreign languages of my choice, etc). I also was frustrated at the arrogance, pride and rudeness of the teachers.
Now I think I've calmed down a lot. It's amazing how much you can learn in one year. I've been changing a lot each year, and it's fun and exciting.
Slashdot Mirror
* 40% seem open to hearing about Linux - they just want something easy to use, cheap, etc
* 20% are skeptical at first then very impressed when they see it ("If I set up a new business I'd definately use Linux")
* 30% would use it if it had the games they wanted
* 10% adamantly support Microsoft without knowing anything about it - perhaps just for the fun of opposing me
So in my experience, Linux has a very bright future for the desktop, at least for those people I encounter daily.
But I think the desktop is dead anyway. Rasterman says that embedded is the future - the level ground. This is true, but there is another path.
Do you think 10 years from now we are going to be using desktops too? I doubt it very much. Minority report perhaps gives us a snippet of the future. Computer "desktops" will go 3D. Maybe we will control our computer with virtual reality gloves and speak commands, or perhaps even use our mind for some simple tasks.
The future of computers will hopefully be power covered by simplicity. The way we think and use computers will change over time. We won't think "I need to use the computer to check e-mail". E-mail will become a daily part of life. Perhaps your house will say to you "You have 3 new messages". And then you respond "bring them up", and in front of you is projected an image of the e-mail, which could possibly be video rather than text. This kind of interface has no desktop. It is a simple and human way of interacting with computers. Desktops are cludgy things that expose people to some of the power of a comptuer that they don't need to see. What we need is a solution that has the simplest possible interface (like the e-mail scenario I gave) but has the potential for the user to hack it at it's base level (open source philosophy). That way the simplicity makes computers a powerful part of everyday life, but also gives the power to those who want/need to fiddle with the settings.
I think the desktop is dead. It's like having 4 remotes with 20 buttons each. In a house you hide your electricy cables, and you hide your water pipes. With computers however we expose people to desktops - which I believe are a patchwork solution. Eventually there will be no "computer" that people fight to use. There will be no monitor or keyboard. The interface will be more natural and human, integrated into the house or building.
Basically, desktops are getting close to their highest potential. The next phase will be something different, something that won't be solved by a new Windows release or by KDE 6.2 - it will require a shift in thought about how computers work, which will start off ugly at first and then progress into something beautiful looking. But as long as we have the desktop, our way of thinking will be constrained to 2 dimensions, which doesn't allow for the vast potential of computers in the near future.
(3dwm plug)
I have found it incredibly useful, and searching for functions a breeze. If you need to find out a function to perform a particular task, then do a quick google search or go onto irc.openprojects.net or some other server and join a channel and ask for a function - then look that function up on php.net.
If you don't know programming, then a resource I have found useful for web based programming (mysql & php specifically) is www.devshed.com, with tutorials on a few different topics.
For game related programming and a number of topics related to that (opengl, directx, ai, etc) then www.gamedev.net is excellent. For opengl you can't go past NeHe Productions.
Oh yeah, I'm aware of that, but it's just that out of the box linux is a lot safer than than IIS or winserver.
I maintain a server, and am well aware that I need to upgrade it as security flaws are announced.
It's amazing how Microsoft on their IIS website can make an inferior product look so nice, friendly, usable and safe - when there is a free alternative that lacks the slick advertising but that is a much superior product, especially in security.
Linux is a safe haven. It's like that story from church about building your house on the rocks rather than the sand, so that when the tide rises you will be safe. Or like people who built a bomb shelter. Or like those who painted their doors with lamb's blood so the angel of death would pass over their house and not kill the first-born son.
I am immortal! The tide of red sweeps daily over the internet and I didn't even get my shoes dirty!
Just a side note, if anyone ever came up with a virus that was as devastating to apache as code red was to IIS, I think Linux would be doomed. If you expect something to fail (Microsoft products) then you don't care too much when they do. But if a product is touted as being absolutely secure and stable (Linux/Apache) then when it does screw up big, it will probably be it's death. The higher up you are, the further you have to fall.
Tell me why I should expect an atheist scientist to give credence to creationist theories if they had supporting evidence? Everyone has biases, and a discussion of origins is inherently philosophical and will include people's biases. When I said "I am someone who has to know the truth about everything - so I search for answers. If that truth happens to be that God created the world merely 6,000 years ago, then so be it" I was meaning evidence besides the Bible that affirms the Biblical record, not just the Bible alone. Clearly, if outside evidence showed the Bible dates were wrong I would have to accept that.
What happens when you study the watch and find contradictions? Ice cores [talkorigins.org] indicate an Earth well over 100,000 years old at an absolute minimum.
We either analyse those contradictions to see if they are perceived or literal. If real then we must reject the theory that contradicts the facts. I can quote for you dating methods which produce an earth age of a maximum 60 million years old, or 6,000 years old for our common ancestor, or other dating methods which produce a young earth. More about ice cores later. Follow this link and hit the next button to read various dating methods which produce very young maximum ages (remember that the age can usually be anything younger than this, but shows an absolute maximum). So this shows that the evolutionists watch has contradictions.
Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 1024 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 1027 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks (quote from talkorigins.org).
Question: is there any mechanism known (and I am ignorant) by which molecules may be created initially in order to form amino acids? You demonstrated that some amino acids form naturally, but what about the molecules they are formed from - do all 20 amino acids naturally form, or only some?
Comment on this: it talks about amino acids forming long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks, but proteins tend to break down rather than form naturally:
"To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated. However, the early oceans or atmosphere would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between them would rarely occur. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids. Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth's heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed. The many attempts to show how life might have arrived on earth have demonstrated (a) the futility of that effort, (b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life, and (c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life. "
Reference
There is much more in the reference you gave on probabilities that I don't understand. I don't really want to comment on it because there's a fair bit more I obviously need to learn in that situation.
Of course, that isn't an issue anyway, amino acids can form far more rapidly than that, even in the constraints of a lab experiment, let alone the oceans of Earth or however other similar planets exist. Only one planet in the universe has to end up with life for that life to then wonder how it got there, right? Hey, I managed to get this post back on-topic for the original thread, sort of.
Note that the improbabilities article I quoted said under the best possible conditions with the most favourable temperature - indicating that this improbability was calculated taking into account the natural formation of amin acids - or that's how I see it. I guess we'd have to contact the creation-science author to be sure.
The interactions are not random though - thanks to the structure of the atoms involved, fairly complex carbon-based molecules are inevitable.
Remember that some processes work against evolution - organisms tend to move from complex to simple, proteins tend to break down to amino acids rather than form, etc So while randomness makes evolution impossibly unlikely, and non-random interactions make it likely - something like this tendancy to work opposite to evolution makes it impossible, not unlikely. And we only need to find one step in the evolutionary trail where the trend is the opposite of what is needed to demonstrate evolution as impossible.
Only one had to evolve for life to exist, and to point out its improbability after the fact is meaningless. Like in poker - the odds of drawing any particular set of cards are very poor, but the odds of drawing a 'winning hand' are not.
Agreed, and I try to keep this in mind.
It's just that I believe the design process was guided, not 'miracled', and that it took place in a natural, physical way that we can understand if we study it.
Since I believe that creation 6000 years old earth is true, I also believe that it is logical and understandable, that everything we observe can make sense and fit into that model. Creation was a once off event and the world was set into motion - we were given desire to reproduce so that God did not have to tell us, the earth produced fruit and vegetables for us to eat of it's own power, etc. But we also believe that the existence of the universe is inexplicably tied to our Creator - and without Him nothing can exist. Evolution seems to me to be nonsensical, and to me that creates a world that is irrational and not understandable, but you feel that way about young earth creationism. Again, subjective argument :)
Asking 'why' to evolution almost always yields the answer 'because it helps them reproduce'. Asking 'why' about creation almost always yields the answer 'because it is part of God's plan'. That's just the different nature of scientific reasoning versus religious reasoning.
Really? Some questions for evolution:
* Why do humans shun rape as a sickening act?
* Why do humans practice self-sacrifice for the love of another that is not necessarily their own offspring?
* Why do humans sometimes feel prone to compassion towards the weak and unpriviliged?
These three questions of the human mind and heart seem completely contradictory to evolution. And why would God use one method to create His masterpiece (murder, rape, greed, selfishness, cruelty, etc) and then later declare these attributes to be sickening and morally wrong? It is obvious that those things happened and were necessary for natural selection, yet under evolution you must presume that they were natural and good processes (Genesis 1:31).
I've enjoyed the site you provided - I think I've seen it before but never explored in great detail. I wish they had a search function, because I couldn't find an answer to the ice cores there. If you know where it is, let me know.
From what I could see ice core dating was based on assumptions of other dating methods (such as C14), so you should probably check out the section on the site that deals with those dating methods and then extend the conclusions from that to ice-core dating. On the main site in the bottom left corner is an index which can be useful. Just go to http://www.creationscience.com instead of the links I give you, since the links I give you don't have frames.
I've found some other interesting tidbits on there. Some really aren't good arguments, or are based on theories or measurements that the scientific community has already revised or discarded. Some of them raise legitimate questions, for which I am still trying to find answers. I hope you find the site I linked to every bit as fascinating.
I think if you follow the footnotes you will see that there is more depth than is commonly accepted by evolutionists. Evolutionists tend to say that something has been "debunked" when it really has only in their mind. I think that evolutionists don't fully comprehend the creation theory and consider it. When reading creation information they must think with the mind of a creationist so they can see how everything fits together. I have to think like an evolutionist to fully appreciate their arguments when I read their websites - and I feel that evolutionists often miss this.
The reason we fight for dominance of Linux is not for the Linux OS specifically, but for the opensource/gpl philosophy in general.
Although it remains true (thanks to lgpl, both our saviour and in the future our death) that commercial software will become more common in linux when it becomes dominant.
So Linux may rise and fall, but hopefully the philosophy of shared source will be ingrained into the mind of the population.
I wish that were true. I love the browser situation on linux at the moment. There is no "best browser" that everyone has to use in order for pages to render correctly. I can choose lynx, galeon, mozilla, netscape, konqueror, opera and more as I please. I don't like it when I'm forced to choose.
Honestly, I'd be happy if Linux never became the dominant operating system, as long as the above situation was true for operating systems - the freedom to choose the operating system that I prefer, and the one best for the job.
But our enemy is agressive and will settle for nothing more than our total death, and for that reason I want Linux to dominate - better to have my preference as the only viable option than to have my enemy as the only option. If Microsoft could ever be satisfied with filling it's role the best it could, and working with standards so people can choose, then fine. But we all know that won't happen, so that's why I say:
Death to Microsoft!
Also, did you read my reference about proteins tending to break down into amino acids, the opposite of what is necessary for evolution? God would have had to have performed a miracle a minute for billions of years for evolution to have occurred - that seems far less logical and unrealistic than the creation approach.
On the website link you provided, a little bit through it talks about handedness of amino acids, so you may be interested in this. Amino acids look pretty simple, and that improbability statement I showed you, when you are doing something a billion times a second for 20 billion years, I think that amino acids would be formed more than once :) I think if we considered that amino acids naturally formed into that equation (if it wasn't already) then the chances would probably still be insanely high (thanks for backing up your claim with what seems like viable research).
Superb argument. It is equally true that you only find support for evolution on an evolutionists website. And don't quote some dribble about most scientists believing evolution - I have only been made aware of one study of beliefs, and it seems that it's split pretty much down the middle
Read question 4, and follow the footnote for the results of the study. Your hordes of evolutionary counterparts are probably just domestic science teachers and ignorant parents.
Wrong. The mitochondrial "Eve" lived somewhere around 200,000 years ago, according to archaeology.org [archaeology.org]. Shocked?
Arg! You are the second person to give that exact article, and the third person to give an article like that. I'll say to you what I said to the others:
Your article is out of date. A new discovery was made in 1997 that demonstrated mutation rates in mtDNA up to 20 times faster! Your article is dated 1996, therefore was written before this new discovery, therefore outdated! This just gets repetitive and annoying. Here is the article for your reference
Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the moon. But anyway, the old chestnut about depth of moon dust has been debunked quite thoroughly. Well, I can't say much of this except that evolutionists appeared to scramble for an argument, by saying that beneath the thin layer of dust is rocks, or by coming up with their own measurements for the intake of dust. I would love to read the article in which the new evolutionist supporting dust intake rates were calculated, and compare it with the creationist ones. You may be interested to read this article.
Wrong. Learn something about dominant and recessive traits. (Are you listening carefully?)
Ooh, great argument, I'm now convinced I was wrong!
Seriously though, where was I wrong about dominant and recessive traits?
However, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt one of two things: 1) that you get all your information from creationist tracts, and outdated ones at that or 2) you are a troll.
Unlike you, who gets his information from outdated evolutionist websites
"Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis."
As far as I was aware, life has NEVER been created, even in a laboratory. Life always comes from life - this is universally observed and has never been proven false.
Can you find a reference for me to back up the following statement? Preferably one on the web so I don't have to purchase a book:e nces32.html#1009444
"More complex things like amino acids also appear to be readily formed when their constituents are put together and energy is added."
To read more about amino acids and proteins, follow this link:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSci
And please do read it - I would love to know what you think. I get this feeling that people don't follow my links, even though I have the courtesy to follow theirs.
Besides, to me, the idea of a God who intricately designed all these individual parts and set up the parameters and laws of the universe in such a way that life was inevitable, is far more awe-inspiring than the idea of God just saying "poof" and the universe popping up in six days. Maxwell's electromagnetic field equations seem a far cry more stunning testament to a Creator than a simple "let there be light". Don't constrain God and His Creation to the simplistic fables of people thousands of years ago.
I don't like God being constrained by the simplistic fables of today - evolution. Evolution is not a new idea. It has been around as long as the hills, I think, and will always exist in some form. The majesty of God is clearly evidence under a creationist model. There are so many amazing things to be observed and contemplated, especially under a creationist model. It is useless to say what you just said - it's merely the subjective emotions of one man/woman. You find evolution more awe-inspiring, I find creatino more awe-inspiring. What does that prove?
I have to apologise to you for being rude. Sorry. Was a bit worked up over posts by a previous author that I carried over to you.
Thanks, genuinely, for pointing me to the original article. I have made a few observations reading Ann Gibbon's article that were also made by the author of the creation science article:
1. The original mtDNA mutation rate was based on the assumption of millions of years - an assumption of a common human/chimpanzee ancestor (of apes) 5 million years ago. So, if this 5million year date was incorrect, then so was the original mutation rate given by evolutionists. This rate is now brought into question, leading to the conclusion that the original age for the common ancestor was false.
2. The new results seem to indicate that mutations occur at a much faster rate. For an evolutionist this means calibration of various dates. For a creationist this further pushes the point that evolutionist dating methods are HIGHLY flawed and almost always seem to contradict each other by a large margin.
3. The reason why the author says no-one believes mitochondrial eve is 6000 years ago is simply because that contradicts everything else they believe about the age of the earth. The logic is like this:
"We know that our common ancestor with chimpanzee's is more than 6,000 years old, so this date must be wrong. We just don't know why yet".
However, the current results of mtDNA mutation rates appear to conform perfectly to the creationist model.
So you see from my perspective now, that this article supported the creation science authors comments perfectly...that the most recent mutation rates supported the Bible of an Eve 6,000 years ago, and also what the author claimed was encountered with this new date - disbelief. That is what it is, the belief that 6,000 years is not possible, therefore the new date must be wrong.
Of course, for the creationist this date is entirely possible so we don't reject it. We have no religious reasons to reject it, while an evolutionist has many religious reasons too. Hence the statement:
"No one thinks that's the case" - since a 6,000 year old mitochondrial eve would be revolutionary.
The creation science author is well aware that Ann Gibbons does not support a creationist model - but he quotes from evolutionists since evidence from their mouth is the greatest evidence, because they can't be accused of bias towards creationism. He states so in his introduction I believe on the website, or somewhere. He uses this article since it gives the facts of mtDNA but says that while the evolutionists reject this new study because they don't believe it is possible, the creationist sees this as one of many proofs of a young earth.
Of course, mtDNA is one of many, as I just said. I gave it as an example, and the issue of creation and evolution goes much deeper than that - and much deeper than can be adequately studied on slashdot.
So I hope this clears it up. Sorry again for my rudeness. If you still have some confusion about how this supports creationism, or why you thik it still is quoting the author out of context, let me know and I'll see if we can agree.
This assumption that life must have evolved elsewhere if it did on earth is utterly ridiculous. Consider the chances of the simplest possible single celled life being created. Now try and imagine this happening twice in the same universe. Ridiculous. (and natural selection plays no role since we are talking about the simplest life):
c ie nces39.html
"To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probabilitya that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is far less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.
From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a "simple" form of life, such as bacteria. Next, we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all atoms, then let them form new links. If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The oddsb are much less than one chance in 10^99,999,999,873. Your odds of drawing at random one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms is about one chance in 10^112--much better. "
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeS
I found a link to the primary literature:r /mitochodrial %20DNA.html
F AQ14.ht ml#1048088
http://hordeum.msu.montana.edu/finge
And I feel quite safe in claiming that the Creation Science author did not quote out of context. His claim was:
"A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than previously thought. Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago."
He provided 4 references for this, which you can check here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
The authors claim was that the mutation rates were actually 20 times more than previously thought. He then quoted from Ann Gibbons the text you gave. Ann Gibbons goes on to say exactly what you said:
"No one thinks that's the case". Ann Gibbons explains that scientists would be unwilling to adjust our structured histories of our recent ancestors. It has so many implications that contradict their mindset that "No one thinks that's the case". In other words, they have no proof that it's not - indeed the Creation Science author in the footnotes I gave mentions one of the solutions that evolutionists have given for this new problem, but is insufficient. Read it yourself.
So I fail to see how this article was taken out of context. Ann Gibbons stated the fact of what the creation science author had said - and also went to talk about the various reasons why scientists are unwilling to accept it - basically because it flies in the face of the history evolutionists have constructed in the last 200,000 years. So put that down in your notebook:
* 16/07/02 - Discovered that mtDNA supports the creationist model. This is a problem for evolutionists which they have yet been unable to answer. Ann Gibbson's article verifies that this is a legitimate problem for various fields.
Please, in future if you are going to claim that a quote was out of context - check that that is true first. That way I don't have to waste 30 minutes of my life correcting a mistake that didn't have to be made.
Please produce the full quote so we can all appreciate the mistake. Or provide a web link to the full article - does Science put old articles online?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Like minded people gather together. There's nothing new about that.
Btw, insults do not constitute arguments. You can make ignorant statements like "Close your eyes and bleat to each other as much as you wish. That's how religion stays alive anyway" all you want - but in the end it should only be logic and evidence that convince people, not intimidation.
If you believe that religion is a child's story I'd love to see you stand up to serious scrutiny. Maybe you can do better than Black Parrot, who appears to have flown away - unless you are him, hiding under "Anonymous Coward" so you don't have to answer the problems I posed to you.
Do you have a slashdot login name so I can recognise you in the future?
Also, have you been lurking and reading this thread? As you might have guessed, I've found his misrepresentations and unwillingness to examine evidence for a creationist position (while all the time complaining there is no evidence) very frustrating.
He claims there is no evidence. When you say "here is some", he turns his back to you and says "where? I can't see it".
I wasn't talking about the validity of the claims. Let me put this simply for you:
You: "You spend no time presenting any evidence for creation"
Me: "Look at these three occasions when I tried to present evidence."
You: "Look at your evidence, it's all faulty"
Me: "That's not the point. You said I didn't give any evidence. I'm showing you that I did, whether it's faulty or not".
Get it? I doubt it somehow.
I get frustrated with idiots who think they know what you are saying, but in fact don't understand you.
Off-topic (since the above was showing you that I did try to give evidence, not that the evidence was valid). READ THE ARTICLE I GAVE YOU ON MITOCHONDRIAL EVE! How hard can it be to follow a simple weblink? mDNA shows that all human females had a common ancestor about 6,000 years ago. GET IT? Evolutionary theory says that Aboriginees in Australia have been isolated for at least 40,000 years. CAN YOU SEE THE PROBLEM? Can you? I showed you that your stupid article on mDNA was old and based on outdated information. Did you bother to comment? No, you prefer comments on the easter bunny and how silly creationism is, even though you can't back up your claims.
And the moon. Of course there's no mention of dust on the moon in the Bible. It's a prediction of expectations based on a certain model of the universe. This model says the universe is around 6000 years old. As such, the model would predict there to be very little moon dust. Your model states the moon is millions of years old. Therefore, your model predicts that there would be layers and layers of moondust - enough to sink a ship. Do you see the contradiction? Do you get it? I doubt it though, coming from someone who thought the chances of getting a random order from shuffling a deck of cards was impossible (when it was actually 100%).
So...maybe now you will understand, but I still doubt it. Simply put:
Both mDNA and moon dust point to a young earth and young moon. They defy the model of evolution .
I know how quick you are to forget, so quickly again this is why mDNA defies the evolution model. mDNA shows that all females have a common ancestor about 6,000 years ago. Evolution, however, says that Aboriginees in Australia have been isolated for at least 40,000 years. And I'm sure it's not just Australia.
Let me also explain the moon again, just in case you are quick to forget that I am showing you how this evidence fits the expectations of only one theory: creation. Evolution predicted that the moon would have very deep layers of moon dust, possibly a mile deep, because the moon is so old - has no erosion or wind to get rid of the dust. FACT: the moon had very little dust, which is perfectly consistent with a young moon! See the problem?
And as for languages, give me a reference on the web. I am wiling to read and consider. But I'm not going to buy a book any more than I'd expect you to go out and buy a book on my recommendation. Back up your claims with evidence, don't just make them. I cited references for mine - you should do the same. Prove to me that linguists think language evolved from simple to complex. You pretended that I compared Sanskrit with English - that's ridiculous - they are completely different. Under a Biblical model they would have two different roots from the tower of Babel - which you also misunderstand:
Almost everything I see conforms to my expectations! There is a great deal of things in the world I would have to regard as illogical if I was to accept an evolutionary model of the world. Stop hiding behind insults and read the links I gave! Or are you afraid that your feeble mind will explode with too much information? I had the decency to read the reference you gave - which turned out to be outdated. How about you reciprocate the favor and read the references I gave?* prior to tower of babel all humans speak one language
* God scatters people by changing their languages. The new languages are formed
* The languages are not innate but can be learned. As a result they have changed over time from the original forms at the tower of babel. Babel was a ONCE OFF event.
Stick to the facts. Stop trying to win your arguments by comparisons of creationism to fantasy stories. Just makes me think you are an idiot all the more.
If you skip everything else, answer this question for me: Why are you so afraid to read the references I give? Why don't you bother? They are short, so it won't fry your brain, and it has references from respected journals to satisfy your curiosity.
Also answer this question: Why, oh why, didn't you comment on mDNA based on the information I gave? Why didn't you say *woops, my article was based on outdated information, sorry*? What if another creationist says "mDNA shows an Eve about 6000 years ago"? Will you give them the same article I gave you, and neglect to mention it's based on outdated and false information? Or will you have integrity and address the problem based on current data?
Please answer these questions
I am deadly serious - you are a complete idiot the way you misread what I have said. Small example:
You quote the horrendously outdated talkorigins.org reference on mDNA. I read it. It had the same problem as the other quote - it was outdated. Let me quote the facts for you again (maybe you will actually read this time):
"A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than previously thought. Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago."
1997!! Your article is dated 1995! It's out of date! Fancy catching an honest evolutionist using outdated information - I thought that was a creationist's habits! And trust me, a 6000 year old mitochondrial Eve is far too young for evolution - Aboriginees in Australia are supposed to have been isolated for at least 40,000 years.
I just had an idea. If we are going to get anywhere...we are going to keep going around in circles unless we put down points of fact and evidence, predictions about what each theory expects to see - then adress them. In this slashdot form it is easy for you to forget explanations I give and then accuse me of doing something I haven't done. So what do you say? Up for the challenge of a formal written debate? It would involve following up some references to make sure that they are being quoted properly and examining each alley properly to make sure the assumptions and conclusions are correct...
Whether or not you agreed with the evidence, I cited at least three pieces for creation:* Evolution of language
* Dust on the moon
* mitochondrial Eve
Read carefully again - You said I quote no evidence. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, but I did give some evidence.
Evolution of language:c esandNotes13.html#1012325
Yeah, because I'm sure that sufferring from internal bleeding, or your blood being unable to clot, has to be beneficial somewhere. Maybe to spray your opponent with blood so he can't see. Seriously though, show me a situation of a bad mutation that may be good, in, for example, the event of a meteor strike. An impossible task, I think. But, just to make it really difficult (and realistic), the mutation has to be beneficial AFTER the fallout finishes, since most of the time of a species is spent during calm times, not the exceptional circumstances of a meteor strike. How about you quote me properly next time huh? I did try to give some evidence which you think you cleverly refuted, and then go on to say I gave no evidence? I have tried to both:http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Referen
And do me a favor of reading it. Bear in mind, if you want to show me counter evidence, make sure it's actual evidence. There's a difference between saying "It may have happened like this" and "From the evidence this seems the most likely way it happened". I don't want anything from the first category - such as the ridiculous stories of how the moon came to be under an evolutionary model.
A) Give evidence of creation
B) Show the irrationality of evolution
So STOP MISREPRESENTING ME!! It doesn't matter if my arguments in your eyes were unreasonable. I still attempted what you accuse me of not attempting. I have at one time given evidence of creation, while at another time given problems with evolution. Get over it! I'm sure you do both too! Eg. "We know the earth is old from dating of fossils" (evidence for evolution), and "Those animals could not have fit on the ark" (argument against creation). Yes, kind of like how two of you just presented outdated arguments of mitochondrial Eve, huh? From a cursory glance, one can see that through natural selection more genetic diversity is lost than is gained. Take a look at humans - we tend to marry people of similar ethnic background. Reduces diversity - and this is in situations where there is no need for us to. That is why people of the same race look similar - there is less diversity, so they show common themes. This could be solved by other races mixing with each other - but that hardly ever happens. There's definately not new diversity being created...but there's certainl reason to believe that we are losing diversity. On the contrary, this fact about mutations makes evolution impossible. I thought I explained this before. If most mutations are recessive, then to express themselves two partners must possess it. For that to happen (and on average the mutation should be lost in two or three generations - 50% chance the first child gets it, 25% the second, 12.5% the third, etc). For two partners to possess it they must have the same recessive beneficial mutation. Meaning that they must be very closely related - the chance of two cousins having the same beneficial mutation is 6.25%, and then 1.56% for second cousins, 0.39% for third cousins having the same beneficial mutation. Now remember, that for every beneficial mutation (presuming that there is such a thing) there are many more harmful mutations. So, any two parents that have a beneficial recessive mutation in common will also have a number of harmful recessive mutations. And the chance of two people having them in common is much greater (because they are more frequent) than having a beneficial mutation. It doesn't matter if recessive mutations are more frequent than dominant ones anyway - according to evolution, beneficial recessive mutations must have occured, since we have many beneficial recessive genes. The problem is, that the process by which these mutations must survive and express themselves, is the very process that destroys them - evidence, cousins and brother/sister marriages are illegal or warned against (depending where you live) because they more frequently produce mutated offspring (in a bad way) than marriage with people distantly related. And for this reason, recessive mutations could never have arisen through the evolutionary model.
Now, I look forward to the many creative ways you will misunderstand what I said, misquote me, show outdated references, etc.
And now, my turn to talk to you lurkers: discussions on forums rarely produce any fruit - go to http://www.creationscience.com for an excellent collection of creationist understanding and check out http://www.talkorigins.org for an evolutionists safe-haven. I ask that you consider the facts carefully - and remember that stories are not fact unless the evidence supports them and opposes all other theories.
Oh, and I just read your fuller explanation of the deck of cards analogy you must be so proud of. If you shuffle a deck of cards there is a 100% chance that it will produce an order. Duh. There is a 0% chance that you will shuffle it into any particular order you specify before the shuffling. This example is horrible - talking about chances of life occurring under an evolutionary model, we are talking about predicting a particular order before it occurs. Saying "this is the only order possible to produce life" then calculating the chance of that order arising. Did you fail statistics? Try it yourself. Predict an order for the cards, then shuffle them and see how many times it takes you to arrive at that order. You work on the presumption that ANY order of proteins, etc, would produce life. That's just silly.
And thinking of the moon Hmm, I'm not sure how much longer I should bother feeding the troll. I'll see whether you reply reasonably this time - or whether you continue to misquote me, not bother to read references, misunderstand me, and pretend you won a great victory when you didn't.
And if you want a real challenge, if you have the time, and you know people who are competent in evolution - and you think it is so convincing, why don't you take up this challenge:h tml
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ413.
I'm sick of evolution. Do me a favor and stop pretending you have so much evidence. I have looked for it. It's not there. If you want evidence for creation I have given you a website, but you continue to ignore it I'm sure and then go on to say "there is no evidence".
Just so you don't miss it:
DON'T YOU DARE EVER SAY CREATION HAS NO EVIDENCE UNTIL YOU READ THIS WEBSITE FULL OF EVIDENCE AND REFERENCES.
http://www.creationscience.com
You sound like a theistic evolution. I would recommend you spend some time researching the issue - you will be surprised at the amount of evidence for creationism.
Galileo was a minority compared to the ignorance of the Catholic Church. Today creationism is that same minority - we have the burden of evidence, but our opponents fight us for religious reasons (while all the time arguing that that is our weakness).
There are many excellent resources - but the easiest to peruse and most well documented I have found is the book at this website (which is online):
http://www.creationscience.com
You can't ignore this just because it is not the realm of biology. It's a simple fact.
Actually, I'd like you to prove that. I have a reference that says:"Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages."
- http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSci
I'm not going to go out an buy a new book unless you can demonstrate to me - preferably from a website - that your idea has any credibility for me to read more. I'm not interested in more crackpot evolutionary ideas unless I'm going to hear something worthwhile.
Oh, and forget arguments that creation science is a minority. Cite some research:h tml
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ414.
Apparently, only a very slight majority believe in evolution.
(btw, don't think I'm being thin or something when I quote often from the one website. It is a convenient collection of resources and arguments from a wide variety of resources, many from evolutionists. Just check the footnotes).
I fail to see the problem.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1333.asp
Your article was written:
Volume 49 Number 5 September/October 1996
You really might want to keep your information up to date. Quote from the reference I gave which I'm almost certain you didn't read: "A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than previously thought. Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago."t ml#1048088
So your information is outdated and based on old data. Back to the drawing board I think. And also, the article you gave me wasn't very descriptive. It drew conclusions for you without citing much evidence. Here is the reference for the above new mutation rates, in case you can't bebothered clicking on the footnote yourself:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ14.h
Though if you read the article yourself, maybe I wouldn't have to spoon feed you this stuff you apparently know so well. (If you are wondering why I'm being so rude, it's because I'm fed up with being treated as a child for something that is completely rational. It is my pursuit to understand all things and be sure that what I believe is true. I hate being put down just because someone thinks they are better. I listen to evidence, not intimidation and emotional displays - I've learned that lesson).
DId you read anything I gave you?? The references I gave clearly stated:"Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust--possibly a mile in thickness."
Of course some dust was expected from a creationist unless the moon was 0 years old. The amount of dust there was perfectly consistent with creationist predictions, but totally inconsistent with evolutionary predictions. Note, also, that dust of this kind is also a problem for the age of the earth - but that's another story. Radiation is also another story. Let's stick to a small area first unless you really want to talk about radiation.
Do me a favor, and read what I have given you before you start making arguments which are adequately addressed in the references I give.
How convenient. Your arguments were unfounded, and you think you won a victory! Perhaps, now, you will have to consider, properly, the other things I wrote - by actually reading the references I give! And if you still don't believe, follow up the footnotes. For some reason, I doubt that very much. You may have at one stage believed young earth creationism, but it doesn't mean you understood it. I'm sure you know many people who have used a computer year after year, and still ask you how to cut&paste or open a file in different programs. May I remind you that Darwin's Origin Of Species presented a theory with no evidence, but some vague observations (about as much as you credit creationists as having - though we have more). Evolutionists today are merely preists of atheism supporting a theory at all cost. It is a philosophy as is creationism, and an illogical one.Again, creationism is not on the back foot. Most people, both those who believe evolution and those who believe creation, have little idea of the theory they promote. The only reference I have seen on actual number of scientists (not school science teachers) that believe evolution is only slightly above 50%. And also, different countries have different laws. In other places in the world people like you could easily be killed for your beliefs - same with mine. Societies rise and fall, and burning heretics - for better or for worse (since I find it undesireable) - will return one day. Then let it begin. We'll see if there's any logic in your beliefs.
1. Tell me of examples of rates of mutation where a beneficial mutation occurs compared to harmful/harmless mutations. Cite an example where such beneficial mutations are shown to take place on enough of a regular basis to be useful.
S cie nces39.html
Also, take note of this: most mutations are recessive. That means that natural selection plays no role in the survival of that beneficial genetic mutation. Also take note, that along with the single beneficial recessive mutation a host of harmful recessive mutations are becoming deeply ingrained in a creature's gene pool. This is known as genetic load - the combined disadvantage far outweighs any advantage.
Consider this problem also - for a recessive beneficial mutation to express itself, both parents must possess the same gene, and both parents must pass the gene on (1 in 4 chance). Consider also that for two parents to possess the same beneficial mutation, they must have obtained it from a common ancestor - meaning that they likely inherited a number of other harmful recessive mutations - of which there is a much greater chance of the child inheriting them and expressing them. So if a child has both recessive genes of a harmful mutation, he likely has inherited a number of other, harmful recessive genes.
This is why close relatives marrying is both essential to evolution, and the very thing that proves it wrong. No-one would argue that brother/sister or cousin marriages produces superior creatures by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, this process reduces diversity and kills evolution.
Face facts: genetic diversity decreases under normal circumstances. The history of genetic traits points all creatures to a common ancestor merely 6000 years ago.
2. You want to talk about chances? Try this:
"To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probabilitya that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is far less than 1 in 10450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10450, realize that the visible universe is about 1028 inches in diameter.
From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a "simple" form of life, such as bacteria. Next, we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all atoms, then let them form new links. If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The oddsb are much less than one chance in 1099,999,999,873. Your odds of drawing at random one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms is about one chance in 10112--much better. "
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Life
Read my response to anonymous, the stuff I wrote applies to you too. Saves me typing up two unique posts, hope you are not offended:l ?sid=35727& cid=3869597
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.p
I think you are a complete idiot. Why? Because you said:
e nces9.html
o ok/FAQ13.ht ml
/ AstroPhy sicalSciences47.html
"And that is for the simple reason that creationism is not founded on any factual basis."
This displays your complete ignorance of creationist arguments. I'm sure you are quite aware of the arguments made by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. But tell me, do you really, genuinely, understand the creationist arguments? I don't think so, because if you did you could not make the above statement without deliberately lying.
Creation arguments are very well founded in evidence. Creationism makes some predictions about what should be observed, as does evolution. Let's look at one evolutionary assumption:
prediction: Language began as simple grunts or some other simple form of communication, and slowly grew and evolved into a complex form...the most complex form being today.
fact: Language in it's earliest form is it's most complex form. It has a much larger vocabulary, better formed grammar, and many more nuances in the language. The most recent forms of language have the least complexity, the smallest vocabulary.
So, language is sufferring from entropy, it's getting simpler.
prediction of evolution: mutations should occasionally produce beneficial changes. This is the process by which all genetic traits were formed.
fact: over 4000 mutations can be measured without a single beneficial one being found. Bacteria and other rapidly mutating living organisms are found to defy evolution - they never gain new/beneficial attributes.
Reference: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSci
Feel free to check the footnotes on this website to verify the claims. You may be surprised, because I'm almost certain that you know nothing of the facts - only what you've been spoon fed by your atheist priests.
So, if mutations never produce beneficial mutations (or even if it was only 1 beneficial mutation for every 4000 harmful/harmless ones) that is nowhere near enough to let evolution happen. Quick, pull out your evolutionary wild-card! Make the age of the earth older! After all you can give yourself as much time as you need.
Let's look at some creationist assumptions
assumption: earth is only around 6,000 years old
fact: mitochondrial dna has a set number of mutations over a period of time. Looking at the difference between the mtdna between two women, you can calculate how far back they came from the same woman (after all, evolution or creation, we all have a common ancestor). Using these mutation rates, all women on the earth have a common ancestor around 6000 years ago. Shocked? How about you verify this fact yourself:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb
Don't forget to check the footnotes if you don't believe it. Of course, this is not the only evidence of a young earth, but for brevity I will cite only one. If you need more, just ask and I'll oblige.
Ooh, here's a good evolutionary assumption:
prediction: since the moon is millions of years old, there should be a thick layer of dust on it (after all, there is no wind or erosion for the dust to settle).
Fact: there was almost no dust on the surface of the moon when man first landed on it. Looks like a young earth!
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook
Please, again, don't forget to check the footnotes.
I'm sure you have many "amazing" arguments on why creationism is stupid. But I'm betting you don't understand the issue.
Example: Creationists also believe natural selection occurs. It's just that we have a much better explanation of it. A creationist believes that most of our genetic traits were created originally by God 6000 years ago in the first created kinds (for humans, Adam & Eve). All the new ones are mutations, and 99.99% are harmful/useless. Now, let's say a bear had the genes for white fur and brown fur at the same locus. It's offspring only inherit one of the two. It's mother is the same. So out of four children, one will have two white fur genes, two will have white and brown fur genes, while one will have two brown fur genes. Now (are you listening carefully? I'm about to destroy a common evolutionists misunderstanding of evolution in action) the one that had all white fur genes would have a much better chance of surviving in a snowy environment. So, it and all the other bears that inherited white fur are the ones most likely to survive. SO, when it comes time for the white bears to have children, there are ONLY white fur genes to inherit. So, adaptation occurs - at the cost of diversity. This is what we can observe - adaptation but definately not through new genes - in fact, diversity is lost until species become specialised. The only way to increase diversity is to get mixed kinds to breed (eg, African's, Asians, American's, etc to all intermarry).
So, I hope you understand now. This is stuff that is observed and verified. It is not the realm of guesswork but on solid, verifiable observances.
Now, this kind of stuff is what creationist arguments predict, and it is what they observe. It is the opposite of what evolution predicts, because diversity is lost.
This has been tested, these facts of life are used by farmers. A particular sugar plant I think, was selectively bred (I hope you know what that means, it's like man-led selection). The ability for the sugar plant to produce greater crops was increased over a period of 100 years until it reached it's maximum ability - then no amount of selective breeding could produce greater results. Why? Because of that observable fact that I described above - diversity is lost to the point where there is only one set of characteristics to inherit. If you want, I can find the reference to that for you. But I'd have to hunt a little.
Just so you know, I've barely touched on the surface of overwhelming evidence for creation and overwhelming evidence for the complete irrational nature of evolution. Slashdot is suited to snippets only, not in depth discussions. If you want further details, feel free to peruse the excellent resource website I linked to a couple of times:
http://www.creationscience.com - don't be afraid of it's name...overcome that fear boundary and find out if your beliefs are rational or not.
As you may or may not guess, I get very tired of idiots pretending that there is no evidence for creation. Makes me want to say rtfm or stfw. Because it's all out there, you've just closed your mind off to understanding it (note I don't say "believing", because I have less of an issue if you actually understand the issues but still reject it).
Haha, this is so funny :)
You say that creationism is a wild card! Bwahahaha!
How old is the earth? 4.5 billion years. Dinosaurs were around 70million years ago. Criticism: woah, that doesn't sound like long enough given the improbability of evolution. Reply: well, we don't know for sure, maybe it was longer.
You watch, the earth will get older and older as evolutionary wild-card explanations are used more and more often.
Common evolution wild cards:
1. We're talking about millions of years
2. Chance did it (creationist equivalent: God did it). Even if the chance is 1 in 10^2000000 for humans to evolve (according to Carl Sagan), chance still must have done it.
I think you would find that my beliefs differ radically from most people who have that 'just in case' attitude, or who believe 'just because'. While most believe that Christianity can't be proved in a rational way, I believe that it is completely rational and logical.
I often feel the same way. Christians/members of religion often become caught up in the delusion that donations towards their church, building, etc, is actually useful. They become wrapped up in helping maintain a building, and as such don't do anything useful. This is not always true - our church offers counselling services, free to anyone who can't afford it...but I still see people who I feel are caught up in serving the building and the structure, and as a result doing nothing useful.
I'll give you an analogy of how I see faith. It's based on an analogy I've heard before.
You see a tightrope walker take a wheelborough over a canyon on a rope. He does it with ease, not even close to falling over. He then fills the wheelborough with bricks, and performs just as well. A third time he puts two dogs in it, and crosses without a problem. Next, he asks you if you would be willing to travel across with him.
This is faith - you have seen with your own eyes evidence that this man is capable...but you may still lack faith in him to help you.
Faith in Jesus comes from knowledge of His existence and ability to save you, but trust in something He promises to do.
What most people say is "here is a canyon. Now trust me, there is a man standing there, there is a rope, and a wheelborough. We have been told this invisible man and wheelborough is there and is capable of crossing. Would you be willing to hop in and cross with us?". That is what most people seem to teach, but it's not based on any rational grounds - you have no reason to believe any of it.
I think other religions have a lot to teach, such as Taoism, but I also believe there are a lot of lies in it. That is why, like with most human teachers, you have to learn to sift the good from the bad.
I'm pretty sure I could answer all your difficult questions, or at least satisfactoraly address them (eg, if you say "Where did God come from?" I can equally ask you "Where did the universe come from?" (big bang is unsatisfactory, since that must have had a beginning too)).
Thanks for sharing your story anyway, gives me more of a glimpse of yourself. I grew up in a Christian home, but my parents are nothing like what I am and what I am becoming. I always believed, but never questioned until about 5 years ago. At that point my life turned around, and it became important to understand and answer all those questions in my mind, in the minds of others, and that I might one day have.
I think I've been blessed by God. I've asked many questions that for others they would not have found an answer, but for me God provided me the truth in time. I can look back now on my life and think of the things I used to believe, and realise that if I had started to question them, I would have had no satisfactory answer. Now I have been given the answer before the question arose.
I had a rebellious period about the same time as I started to question. Most of it was directed at school: I was fed up with studying things I already knew, and being unable to learn the things I wanted (computers, foreign languages of my choice, etc). I also was frustrated at the arrogance, pride and rudeness of the teachers.
Now I think I've calmed down a lot. It's amazing how much you can learn in one year. I've been changing a lot each year, and it's fun and exciting.