You need some edjamacatin' there AC : The second law does not apply to evolution because we have lots of energy coming into the system. Most of that is from the Sun, some if from the heat of the earth's interior. A perpetual motion machine has to create as much or more energy than it expends, with no help from the outside.
Except at this point the Justice Dept seems to have become more or less an arm of the Republican party. Any analysis of investigations of political corruption at the local level shows that they prosecute Democrats at a much higher rate than Republican (something like seven times the rate but I don't have the report here in front of me). So its not really surprising that they have nothing on the Repubs; I doubt they are even looking.
Ok, by your security ranking via google, apache is the most hacked
"Results 1 - 10 of about 1,800,000 for apache hacked server. (0.16 seconds) "
also, your second example is expanding the scope out of IIS; that is an OS problem, not a Web server one.
Actually, in theory the system does have to be 100% safe, just significantly safer than people. If it could cut down traffic fatalities to say 5,000 from 50,000 it would be good. Actually, the main opposition I see it from police departments, who will no longer be able to stop cars for violations.
Hmmm, most of what you are talking about is the abuse of scientific output by either government or business. The one problem that you bring up with the scientific community itself, the cloning scandal, was actually caught by the rest of the scientific community as it applied its methods to the research. The rest of your post is simply a bunch of unsupported hyerpbole and hysteria.
So, what's the answer? You still haven't given it. You just claimed (once again) that evolution isn't proven. You didn't answer anything. Let me guess...you have no answer.
1) If micro but not macro evolution occurs, how does microevolution *prevented* from becoming macroevolution. That is something that ID has never answered.
2) If the fossil record was simply species moving around, where did all these species come from anyway? And where have they all gone? Was there some insane number species at the creation of this planet, gradually dwindling as they traipsed about the earth?
No David, sorry but you are way wrong here.
Scientists started with no particular assumption about how and when the universe was created. In fact as the scientific method first began to be adopted most of them probably thought it to be quite young. As they investigated, they began to find things that invalidated their initial hypotheses and they then modified them to fit in line with the facts. There was no document they to which they had to refer to make sure that the new theories did no contradict.
Fundamentalists, such as you, reject the scientific method. You start with the assumption that there exists a book with unchallengable truths in it. That places you outside science. So to even claim that there are "Creation Scientists" with your views ridiculous. Your view rejects science so there can be no scientists holding those view. A "Creation Scientist" is no more realistic than a "Fundamentalist Christian Atheist".
Finally, I find it very arrogant of people like you who assume that *only* your view of the universe can be the correct on. I highly doubt that any supreme being has made you co-partner in holding the secrets of the universe or that your entirely human mind could even comprehend the entire universe.
Because the fossil record does not show "bigger and bigger life forms" in the upper layers - it shows newer ones!. In fact, your theory would require large dinosaur bones to be on the top layer of everything instead of in the middle layer - as they are.
I take it then you are in favor of releasing all criminals who's crimes were not actively witnessed by a human being but inferred only from forensic evidence.
You forgot:
d) Politician who depend on getting donations from corporations and multi-millionaire in return for giving them huge tax breaks and corporate welfare.
Actually that was what was being referred to in the first place.
And if I have no kids *and* drive a hybrid, do you still have to scrap your Mustang? Or does everyone have to kill their kids for you to make a sacrifice?
Dinosaurs with bird feathers. And in regard to "swift", in terms of the fossil record, 10,000 years is swift so we may be a long time seeing a species evolve.
If you have a basin that holds 100 gallons of liquid, and you've measured the inflow to be exactly 1 gallon per minute (into the top, no pressure issues), and you've measured the current contents to be exactly 50 gallons. Approximately how long has the container been filling?
The correct answer is, of course, you have no idea. You have absolutely no idea what you started with, whether the current conditions have been continuous, whether any liquid has been removed, what conditions have changed, or any number of other factors.
Bad analogy. Bad, bad, bad. The rock checked in geology have fairly reliable indicators of age (at least for igneous and some metamorphic rocks) so those are testable and decay rates of radioisotopes are testable and repeatable. That gives a starting point for a lot of other testable and repeatable experiments. So again, explain to me why evolution is faith based (other than some people want it to be).
Testability is not a necessary condition for it to be a theory. AFAIK intelligent design isn't testable, but it does explain a phenomenon.
Testability *is* a necessary condition for something to be a *scientific* theory. Dunno where you get the idea that it isn't. Otherwise its just a story. I could make up a story right now that explains just as much as ID. And that is the problem with the whole thing. There is no way to determine the truth of it.
Actually, according to a whole slew o' fundies, the King James version of the bible was a later divine revelation. Yup, directly from God to the English court. So they feel free to ignore anything written before then.
"Look, you guys come up with stuff like "Dark Matter" which is theoretical type of matter that does not conform in any way to what we know about matter. It's invisible to any form of detection that we have ever devised, and yet, it MUST be there. If that isn't meta-physical, I don't know what the heck is."
Wow, that's is the dumbest statement I've seen in a while... of course dark mater is detectable - its detectable via it gravitational influence. That's why it got invoked in the first place! The problem is that most of it has not yet been detected by other means, so no one really know what the heck it is.
"I freely admit that my world view is governed by unproven, unprovable faith. For you to claim otherwise is hypocrisy and maybe even hubris."
Hmmm, and your arguments seem to be defined by uninformed, ignorant remarks. I think you need the hubris check around here.
Bzzzt!!! Sorry Prof, wrong answer. Hard links were there since NT 3.51 at least, maybe all the way back to NT 3.1. The only problem was that you could only access them through either the POSIX subsystem, or some special utility that would bypass the Win32 API and work directly with the NT kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
You need some edjamacatin' there AC : The second law does not apply to evolution because we have lots of energy coming into the system. Most of that is from the Sun, some if from the heat of the earth's interior. A perpetual motion machine has to create as much or more energy than it expends, with no help from the outside.
Except at this point the Justice Dept seems to have become more or less an arm of the Republican party. Any analysis of investigations of political corruption at the local level shows that they prosecute Democrats at a much higher rate than Republican (something like seven times the rate but I don't have the report here in front of me). So its not really surprising that they have nothing on the Repubs; I doubt they are even looking.
Ok, by your security ranking via google, apache is the most hacked "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,800,000 for apache hacked server. (0.16 seconds) " also, your second example is expanding the scope out of IIS; that is an OS problem, not a Web server one.
If you don't talk about it, how can you know you are getting 1.5-2x salary?
Parent modded "flamebit" huh? I see the FBI has been diligent in accruing moderator points...
Why do all the wingnut dweebs post as AC?
Go figure - an Anonymous Puss^H^H^H^Coward calling somebody a lame pussy.
Actually, in theory the system does have to be 100% safe, just significantly safer than people. If it could cut down traffic fatalities to say 5,000 from 50,000 it would be good. Actually, the main opposition I see it from police departments, who will no longer be able to stop cars for violations.
Hmmm, most of what you are talking about is the abuse of scientific output by either government or business. The one problem that you bring up with the scientific community itself, the cloning scandal, was actually caught by the rest of the scientific community as it applied its methods to the research. The rest of your post is simply a bunch of unsupported hyerpbole and hysteria.
So, what's the answer? You still haven't given it. You just claimed (once again) that evolution isn't proven. You didn't answer anything. Let me guess...you have no answer.
1) If micro but not macro evolution occurs, how does microevolution *prevented* from becoming macroevolution. That is something that ID has never answered.
2) If the fossil record was simply species moving around, where did all these species come from anyway? And where have they all gone? Was there some insane number species at the creation of this planet, gradually dwindling as they traipsed about the earth?
No David, sorry but you are way wrong here. Scientists started with no particular assumption about how and when the universe was created. In fact as the scientific method first began to be adopted most of them probably thought it to be quite young. As they investigated, they began to find things that invalidated their initial hypotheses and they then modified them to fit in line with the facts. There was no document they to which they had to refer to make sure that the new theories did no contradict. Fundamentalists, such as you, reject the scientific method. You start with the assumption that there exists a book with unchallengable truths in it. That places you outside science. So to even claim that there are "Creation Scientists" with your views ridiculous. Your view rejects science so there can be no scientists holding those view. A "Creation Scientist" is no more realistic than a "Fundamentalist Christian Atheist". Finally, I find it very arrogant of people like you who assume that *only* your view of the universe can be the correct on. I highly doubt that any supreme being has made you co-partner in holding the secrets of the universe or that your entirely human mind could even comprehend the entire universe.
Because the fossil record does not show "bigger and bigger life forms" in the upper layers - it shows newer ones!. In fact, your theory would require large dinosaur bones to be on the top layer of everything instead of in the middle layer - as they are.
I take it then you are in favor of releasing all criminals who's crimes were not actively witnessed by a human being but inferred only from forensic evidence.
You forgot: d) Politician who depend on getting donations from corporations and multi-millionaire in return for giving them huge tax breaks and corporate welfare. Actually that was what was being referred to in the first place.
Allow co-patenting?
And if I have no kids *and* drive a hybrid, do you still have to scrap your Mustang? Or does everyone have to kill their kids for you to make a sacrifice?
Dinosaurs with bird feathers. And in regard to "swift", in terms of the fossil record, 10,000 years is swift so we may be a long time seeing a species evolve.
If you have a basin that holds 100 gallons of liquid, and you've measured the inflow to be exactly 1 gallon per minute (into the top, no pressure issues), and you've measured the current contents to be exactly 50 gallons. Approximately how long has the container been filling? The correct answer is, of course, you have no idea. You have absolutely no idea what you started with, whether the current conditions have been continuous, whether any liquid has been removed, what conditions have changed, or any number of other factors. Bad analogy. Bad, bad, bad. The rock checked in geology have fairly reliable indicators of age (at least for igneous and some metamorphic rocks) so those are testable and decay rates of radioisotopes are testable and repeatable. That gives a starting point for a lot of other testable and repeatable experiments. So again, explain to me why evolution is faith based (other than some people want it to be).
Testability is not a necessary condition for it to be a theory. AFAIK intelligent design isn't testable, but it does explain a phenomenon. Testability *is* a necessary condition for something to be a *scientific* theory. Dunno where you get the idea that it isn't. Otherwise its just a story. I could make up a story right now that explains just as much as ID. And that is the problem with the whole thing. There is no way to determine the truth of it.
Actually, according to a whole slew o' fundies, the King James version of the bible was a later divine revelation. Yup, directly from God to the English court. So they feel free to ignore anything written before then.
"Look, you guys come up with stuff like "Dark Matter" which is theoretical type of matter that does not conform in any way to what we know about matter. It's invisible to any form of detection that we have ever devised, and yet, it MUST be there. If that isn't meta-physical, I don't know what the heck is." Wow, that's is the dumbest statement I've seen in a while... of course dark mater is detectable - its detectable via it gravitational influence. That's why it got invoked in the first place! The problem is that most of it has not yet been detected by other means, so no one really know what the heck it is. "I freely admit that my world view is governed by unproven, unprovable faith. For you to claim otherwise is hypocrisy and maybe even hubris." Hmmm, and your arguments seem to be defined by uninformed, ignorant remarks. I think you need the hubris check around here.
I could be wrong, but aren't prions unable to reproduce without co-opting the DNA mechanisms in a cell?
Yep, he is in the majors, while you Leon, seem to still be in tee-ball.
Bzzzt!!! Sorry Prof, wrong answer. Hard links were there since NT 3.51 at least, maybe all the way back to NT 3.1. The only problem was that you could only access them through either the POSIX subsystem, or some special utility that would bypass the Win32 API and work directly with the NT kernel.