But a book on Moon vs Mars exploration is little more than conjecture. Without experience and knowledge, everything at this point is largely speculation, including my suggestion as well as Zubrin's.
But my experience in working with others, developing technologies, and implementing solutions to problems tells me that it is better to start small and build from there. The solution that started small ends up working and often, faster than a go-for-it-all "shoot the moon" solution, all puns intended.
It seems Zubrin suggests we try for the Olympic Gold Medal, when we've hardly won our first Teeball game.
When we haven't even done much with the Moon? I say start smaller then work our way up. Establish a base on the moon; grow plants in a contained greenhouse, get some population on the moon, make it a place that can sustain life for some time.
From there, with we'd have better understanding and experience in exploration and cultivation, and thus we could more easily work out our grander visions of Mars exploration.
1. Create DVDs with self-destruct technology 2. Sell DVDs to public 3. Profit 4. After the DVD is viewed, self-destruct 5. Repeat steps 2 - 4 as necessary.
He notes that Microsoft will be trying to achieve RIAs in Avalon, but that it's late out of the gate.
It matters little when Microsoft controls the browser and the operating system. They could start deploying RIAs (Avalon web apps) tomorrow and have broad support for it in the browser and OS if they wanted.
One thing's for sure: I have yet to see a web UI framework look as good as Avalon web apps. Aeroglass over the web looks great. I wonder how well it will be accepted by the public.
as a RAD it blows away even the best that.NET has to offer.
It is RAD and is a very cool language, however, one thing that Python does not have going for it is its execution speed. It's fine for small stuff, scripts and little apps, but anything larger and you're lost in a sea of interpreted code.
FYI, you can still code for Python and compile to.NET. Why? Native Windows UI widgets (Windows Forms), an extensible, powerful application framework, and SPEED! Python compiled to run on the.NET platform runs faster than Python 2.3. See http://ironpython.com/ And yes, it is cross-platform, IronPython is runnable on Mono.
Also, Microsoft made an interesting move recently: it hired the creator of IronPython and is now actively developing Python which runs on.NET and Mono. In fact, you can go to MSDN and download it right now.
Anyways, Python is a cool language. I'm helping out with a Python-derivative language called Boo, check it out here.
Uh, again, you're so quick to dismiss everything thrown at you that you once again made a false statement. That article I showed you in the last post isn't Wikipedia. It's EvoWiki, an evolutionist site, which confirms there is, in fact, a law of Biogenesis.
The Law of Biogenesis was created more than a century ago, to discredit scientists who were pushing abiogenesis. It's an empiricle law that isn't even refuted by secular scientists.
To me, God isn't just filling in the gaps, but rather, he's set everything -- even inorganic matter -- into place. Even the natural processes that were previously attributed to god or gods, I believe, were set into place, rules to govern the universe. We're just discovering some of these rules as we go along.
But that's just my utterly humble opinion, and you're entitled to yours as well.:-)
What's the point of discussion if the best you can do is spew insults?
Your arguments were non-existant; you simply insult anyone that doesn't agree with your view of the world, making you fit in with your own A. points. Quite fitting, I think.
Check out the Miller Experiment, creation of proteins by simulating an early earth environment stimulated by electrical charges. An electrical charge, assumingly lightning, struck a pool of primordial ooze, thus forming life; this is not only what's trying to be replicated by secular scientists today, but also what's being taught as the origin of life in biology classes today. It's strawman argument; lightning zapped primordial ooze is the actual argument, silly as it sounds!
They're trying to make complex molecules (RNA, DNA, proteins) from naturally occuring molecules using natural processes, and this is "unnatural"?
Nope. What I am saying is that the very process of life coming from non-life, we observe, doesn't occur naturally and still can't be repro'd in a lab. What's more, abiogenesis goes against the Law of Biogenesis; either of the laws is wrong, and it seems to me the former.
As far as ID being disproven, I don't subscribe to ID as I've mentioned many times in this thread, so I won't spend several paragraphs in its defense. I will say that the page you linked to tries to disprove ID by natural means: "who designed the designer?" is pointless to argue, given that creationists and IDists assume the designer is extra-natural and has created everything, including time itself. The argument you link to is assuming a linear timeline that follows natural laws (first someone had to create the designer, then the designer had to create...); when Creationists and IDists assume neither time nor natural laws existed before the designer created the universe and put its laws into motion. If someone created the universe, it's pointless to ask how he could've existed since, we assume, the designer to be omnipotent, not bound by any of the laws of the universe.
What am I left with, you ask? What I'm left with, my friend, is a Wikipedia entry that has been modified to fit the worldview of an atheist. Also, I'm left with several thousand other sources around the web (even atheistic ones!) that cite biogenesis as a law. For example, here's another atheistic one that, while it tries to discredit it, still acknowledges it as a law. What are you going to do, modify that one to fit your worldview also?
I like this. You're scrambling to rewrite anything written that doesn't fit your opinion. And that isn't science, that's censoring an opposing view.
Talk Origins is nothing short of a vent for atheistic evolutionists and you know it.
Wikipedia's mission, OTOH is to create a non-political, opinion-less source of information. You modified Wikipedia to support your worldview; that was really mature of you. Funny to see the true colors of the other side!
I'm not the one bringing the hypothesis to the table; I'm refuting an already-existing hypothesis. I'm saying abiogenesis must go against a law of nature in order to occur. Abiogenesis supporters don't deny this, they just assume that the law of nature they're breaking must be wrong, which has yet to be proven.
Science is about finding rules we can depend on, I agree. In this case, we haven't found a rule that shows macroevolution, have we? If we have, I haven't been aware of it.
One rule we have found is that life comes from other life. Oddly enough, it's not the creationists ignoring this rule, but secularists teaching abiogenesis. Of course, not all evolutionists teach abiogenesis. Still, abiogenesis is the only theory being taught in most schools.
Abiogenesis isn't a creationist-invented term, Wikipedia tells me it has its roots going back long before evolution was introduced, and is a commonly used generic term to define life originating from primordial soup.
I agree though, asking where *all* matter came from is quite another question, and begs to be asked, how does something come from nothing? Like life out of non-life, unless you say the distinction is non-existant, both are good questions that don't yet have proven answers.
It's become fashionable to attack abiogenesis? I must've missed that show, as I've never brought it up until just the other day with the/. post on IDism.
If it doesn't matter where that ancestor species came from, as you suggest, then why the big deal about creation vs. evolution? I mean, evolution could be applied to creation of the initial life, or abiogenesis of the initial life...
Ugh. Do you honestly believe I just added an entire Wikipedia entry, complete with pros and cons, multiple references, and a well-written thesis, all just to prove you wrong? Hahaha I really hope not!
Of course, you could always just check the editing history of that wiki page to see for yourself: check it out.
You're right, we could go on all day about this, but if you're denying whether this is a law, when I've pointed you to one of the most unbiased and critical sites in the world (unlike TalkOrigins!), Wikipedia, that says it is a law explicitly, 2 times in the article, no less! Well then, there's little chance of you changing your already-made-up, closed mind.
Slashdot Mirror
But a book on Moon vs Mars exploration is little more than conjecture. Without experience and knowledge, everything at this point is largely speculation, including my suggestion as well as Zubrin's.
But my experience in working with others, developing technologies, and implementing solutions to problems tells me that it is better to start small and build from there. The solution that started small ends up working and often, faster than a go-for-it-all "shoot the moon" solution, all puns intended.
It seems Zubrin suggests we try for the Olympic Gold Medal, when we've hardly won our first Teeball game.
When we haven't even done much with the Moon? I say start smaller then work our way up. Establish a base on the moon; grow plants in a contained greenhouse, get some population on the moon, make it a place that can sustain life for some time.
From there, with we'd have better understanding and experience in exploration and cultivation, and thus we could more easily work out our grander visions of Mars exploration.
The Mono jokes are getting old now.
Hahah! Brilliant.
That's not real anarchy though. When I said, anarchy, I meant no government whatsoever.
Like software, government starts out nice, clean, and small, but inevitably grows fat and unmanageable.
What do you propose, anarchy?
while(disc->isDestroyed)
::Profit();
{
disc = new CrippledJunk();
theMasses->purchase(disc);
theMasses->view(disc);
disc->selfDestruct();
}
1. Create DVDs with self-destruct technology
2. Sell DVDs to public
3. Profit
4. After the DVD is viewed, self-destruct
5. Repeat steps 2 - 4 as necessary.
He notes that Microsoft will be trying to achieve RIAs in Avalon, but that it's late out of the gate.
It matters little when Microsoft controls the browser and the operating system. They could start deploying RIAs (Avalon web apps) tomorrow and have broad support for it in the browser and OS if they wanted.
One thing's for sure: I have yet to see a web UI framework look as good as Avalon web apps. Aeroglass over the web looks great. I wonder how well it will be accepted by the public.
as a RAD it blows away even the best that .NET has to offer.
.NET. Why? Native Windows UI widgets (Windows Forms), an extensible, powerful application framework, and SPEED! Python compiled to run on the .NET platform runs faster than Python 2.3. See http://ironpython.com/ And yes, it is cross-platform, IronPython is runnable on Mono.
.NET and Mono. In fact, you can go to MSDN and download it right now.
It is RAD and is a very cool language, however, one thing that Python does not have going for it is its execution speed. It's fine for small stuff, scripts and little apps, but anything larger and you're lost in a sea of interpreted code.
FYI, you can still code for Python and compile to
Also, Microsoft made an interesting move recently: it hired the creator of IronPython and is now actively developing Python which runs on
Anyways, Python is a cool language. I'm helping out with a Python-derivative language called Boo, check it out here.
Uh, again, you're so quick to dismiss everything thrown at you that you once again made a false statement. That article I showed you in the last post isn't Wikipedia. It's EvoWiki, an evolutionist site, which confirms there is, in fact, a law of Biogenesis.
The Law of Biogenesis was created more than a century ago, to discredit scientists who were pushing abiogenesis. It's an empiricle law that isn't even refuted by secular scientists.
To me, God isn't just filling in the gaps, but rather, he's set everything -- even inorganic matter -- into place. Even the natural processes that were previously attributed to god or gods, I believe, were set into place, rules to govern the universe. We're just discovering some of these rules as we go along.
:-)
But that's just my utterly humble opinion, and you're entitled to yours as well.
God bless.
What's the point of discussion if the best you can do is spew insults?
Your arguments were non-existant; you simply insult anyone that doesn't agree with your view of the world, making you fit in with your own A. points. Quite fitting, I think.
Check out the Miller Experiment, creation of proteins by simulating an early earth environment stimulated by electrical charges. An electrical charge, assumingly lightning, struck a pool of primordial ooze, thus forming life; this is not only what's trying to be replicated by secular scientists today, but also what's being taught as the origin of life in biology classes today. It's strawman argument; lightning zapped primordial ooze is the actual argument, silly as it sounds!
They're trying to make complex molecules (RNA, DNA, proteins) from naturally occuring molecules using natural processes, and this is "unnatural"?
Nope. What I am saying is that the very process of life coming from non-life, we observe, doesn't occur naturally and still can't be repro'd in a lab. What's more, abiogenesis goes against the Law of Biogenesis; either of the laws is wrong, and it seems to me the former.
As far as ID being disproven, I don't subscribe to ID as I've mentioned many times in this thread, so I won't spend several paragraphs in its defense. I will say that the page you linked to tries to disprove ID by natural means: "who designed the designer?" is pointless to argue, given that creationists and IDists assume the designer is extra-natural and has created everything, including time itself. The argument you link to is assuming a linear timeline that follows natural laws (first someone had to create the designer, then the designer had to create...); when Creationists and IDists assume neither time nor natural laws existed before the designer created the universe and put its laws into motion. If someone created the universe, it's pointless to ask how he could've existed since, we assume, the designer to be omnipotent, not bound by any of the laws of the universe.
What am I left with, you ask? What I'm left with, my friend, is a Wikipedia entry that has been modified to fit the worldview of an atheist. Also, I'm left with several thousand other sources around the web (even atheistic ones!) that cite biogenesis as a law. For example, here's another atheistic one that, while it tries to discredit it, still acknowledges it as a law. What are you going to do, modify that one to fit your worldview also?
I like this. You're scrambling to rewrite anything written that doesn't fit your opinion. And that isn't science, that's censoring an opposing view.
I'm not debating evolution, though.
I'm saying that abiogenesis isn't proven nor accepted by all scientists; yet it's the only theory being taught.
Talk Origins is nothing short of a vent for atheistic evolutionists and you know it.
Wikipedia's mission, OTOH is to create a non-political, opinion-less source of information. You modified Wikipedia to support your worldview; that was really mature of you. Funny to see the true colors of the other side!
I'm not the one bringing the hypothesis to the table; I'm refuting an already-existing hypothesis. I'm saying abiogenesis must go against a law of nature in order to occur. Abiogenesis supporters don't deny this, they just assume that the law of nature they're breaking must be wrong, which has yet to be proven.
Hahaha, you secular evolutionists, always trying to "fix" the evidence. (kidding) :-)
Science is about finding rules we can depend on, I agree. In this case, we haven't found a rule that shows macroevolution, have we? If we have, I haven't been aware of it.
One rule we have found is that life comes from other life. Oddly enough, it's not the creationists ignoring this rule, but secularists teaching abiogenesis. Of course, not all evolutionists teach abiogenesis. Still, abiogenesis is the only theory being taught in most schools.
Abiogenesis isn't a creationist-invented term, Wikipedia tells me it has its roots going back long before evolution was introduced, and is a commonly used generic term to define life originating from primordial soup.
I agree though, asking where *all* matter came from is quite another question, and begs to be asked, how does something come from nothing? Like life out of non-life, unless you say the distinction is non-existant, both are good questions that don't yet have proven answers.
It's become fashionable to attack abiogenesis? I must've missed that show, as I've never brought it up until just the other day with the /. post on IDism.
If it doesn't matter where that ancestor species came from, as you suggest, then why the big deal about creation vs. evolution? I mean, evolution could be applied to creation of the initial life, or abiogenesis of the initial life...
Ugh. Do you honestly believe I just added an entire Wikipedia entry, complete with pros and cons, multiple references, and a well-written thesis, all just to prove you wrong? Hahaha I really hope not!
Of course, you could always just check the editing history of that wiki page to see for yourself: check it out.
You're right, we could go on all day about this, but if you're denying whether this is a law, when I've pointed you to one of the most unbiased and critical sites in the world (unlike TalkOrigins!), Wikipedia, that says it is a law explicitly, 2 times in the article, no less! Well then, there's little chance of you changing your already-made-up, closed mind.
Don't feed the AC trolls! :-)