Genesis 2:5 simply points out that no plants or vegetation was under cultivation, because man had not been created yet. Genesis to is a detailed review of the creation of man (it says so in verse 4) and adds some detail like there was no rain, as such, yet, and plant life and ground-based animal life received their water through a misting that eminated from the ground. I see no inconsistency here, and I've checked a couple of different translations.
Please supply a scriptural reference for your assertion that the Bible says the flying things came before "cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." No disrespect intended, but I'd like to see for myself, including the context and then check a few translations for the sake of thoroughness.
The breadth and depth of your lack of knowledge about science and the scientific method are awe-inspiring.
Science is a process of involving the quest for the true way something works, mainly involving stepwise refinement of theories until they can be proved through experimentation to be correct.
If a theory turns out to be false, it doesn't mean it was never "science" in the first place. Such a statement is idiotic. Once a theory emerges as proven correct via the scientific method, it can be considered fact, until otherwise disproven by a more rigorous application of the scientific method (e.g., cold fusion).
Your sad condition is probably due to a lack of a university degree, like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Thats it! Your theme song should be "If I Only Had a Brain..."
I am quite aware of that some states in the US require that you pass a test to certify you as an engineer. But like most of state-based certification tests they are not universal; passing the PE in one state doesn't confer the right to be called an engineer in another with the same requirement. So if you're a certified engineer in Iowa, you're not in Texas? And what of the states that don't require it, are their engineers not "real" engineers? The UK has 5-year progrms for an undergraduate engineering degree. Are US engineers not "real" engineers? Are UK undergraduates "super-engineers"? And to my knowledge, you do not have to be a graduate of a university to take and pass PE tests, again showing that to be an engineer is an independent notion from graduating from a college or university. I think that in some states, if you pass the bar exam you're a lawyer, and you do not have to graduate from a law school. And besides, even if I gave you the name of the university I graduated from, you'd find some reason to dismiss that too. Face it, you can't stay on point because you have no real foundation in any of it. You just repeat the mainstream view because it's safe. Maybe it keeps you from having to think for yourself, maybe it's because you can't think for yourself. What is clear is you cannot deal with the issues like anyone of intelligence or maturity.
You have absolutely no basis for judging my credentials, or reaching the conclusions you have about my education. It is simply a weak attempt at diverting your lack of defensible position.
You said you never heard of an electronics engineer. Fine. I supplied with a AAA reference of people that actively refer to themselves as such. Shame on you for then saying that your daddy never used the term so you're excused for your ingorance. And you never heard of it, not even given your grand circle of acquaintances. Grow up. You are making a diversionary attack because you can't make a cogent defense of your own faith, probably because you don't know what you actually believe. The "my daddy said" defense, very profound. Guess you're not a lawyer either.
More on the "my daddy said" defense. A quick google search reveals a number of universities worldwide that grant bachelor's degrees in "electronics engineering". Maybe you daddy's so old he predates the modern notion of electronics, but that's his problem and your clear misrepresentation of the facts. Thus, you are the one who has deceived readers, not I. I have proven that you do not know what you're talking about, even when a simple google search is all that is needed to get the correct answer.
Once again, you cannot clearly articulate your own point of view, which means that you do not understand it yourself. You do not supply your own credentials, or even suggest that you have any at all in any field of endeavor. Your posts lack any real sense of knowledge of mechanics, biology, medicine, electricity, physics, or anything else for that matter. You don't even realize that the principle teaching of evolution is life from non-living matter or understand its implications. You are profoundly unfamiliar with scientific method, which clearly mandates that the transition from theory to fact is only possible through verification of the mechanisms. So, if you say that evolution is fact because you know life came from non-life but you can't say how it happened -- precisely -- and prove it really works that way, well then your just another loser with a theory. And maintaining that it can no longer be proven because it was a once-for-all-time thing and it's a mystery. but you're sure it really happened anyway, you sound foolish, worse even than the most dogmatic religionist.
At least I have the intellectual honesty to say creation will never be proved in a laboratory and therefore will always remain a theory under the tenets of the scientific method. Most who espouse evolution theory say it's no longer a theory because lots of people really, really beleive it, and we can
One definition of engineer is: "a person who is trained in or follows as a profession a branch of engineering."
When I cited my credentials I gave them colloquially, as many do in the field of electrical engineering, and referred to the sub-discipline of electronics engineering. To further contribute to your education, folks in the trade also refer to themselves as digital engineers, analog engineers, and even RF engineers. And then there are software engineers whose diplomas are in electrical engineering. But generally these colloquial references are made to highlight disciplinary specialties and especially differentiate themselves from powerline engineers.
Thomas Edison, that great inventor and engineer, had no university degree that I know of, and many others that I consider fine engineers also have no university eduation (many come from the military or are in the software specialty). And I am quite sure there are many other distinguished engineers also are sans university or college diplomas. Most people I know with this hang-up rely on their sheepskin and not their actual professional performance. The point is it is always about what you accomplish, not about who you learned the basics from. When one is incapable of genuaine acheivement, all they are left with is 'who you learned it from.' The sure sign of an idiot in my book is when the need your resume or insist on giving you theirs as a basis for respect. And while we're on the subect, Jesus never graduated from a university either, and he became rather well-known and well respected, but I digress...
But resume time is upon us. I myself have been creating circuits and systems for over twenty years, and have several US and European "pioneering" patents on devices methods and processes. I have designed fiber optic equipment (linear and digital), digital electronics, RF transmitters and receivers, and so on. I have designed communications networks as with the title of "Chief Engineer" and other similar titles for some of the worlds largest corporations. That should suffice to prove that the title "engineer" exists independently from the concept of a university degree. (I never give the name of the institution of higher learning I attendedc to people I do not know, it makes them focus on where I went to school rather than what I said or did). The things I write stand on their own merit. I do not feel the personal need to receive authority on the basis of the schools I could afford to go to, or that my family had the political connections to get me into.
That said, I feel it is necessary to point out that the abbreviation "IEEE" stands for -- you guessed it -- "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers." Hopefully, this meets your proof criteria and saves me the pain of listing every instution that offers Electronics Engineering degrees. You should really get out more.
Since I have never heard of anyone that has never heard of an electronics engineer or a dgree in said same, perhaps you should give your credentials, inventions, claims to fame, ad nauseum. Frankly, now I'm now a little suspicious of you. So many evolutionists exaggerate their credentials...
To address the matter at hand, bacterial and human reproduction alike, the observation is that life only comes from life, never from non-life. This key aspect of evolution has never been observed in a way that conforms to any present or past evolutionary theory, and not even in a way that doesn't conform (other than one that involves intelligent creation component). The basic claim of modern evolutionists is that life evolved from non-life, even though Darwin himself disallowed this in his book Origin of Species.
Alas, I must take issue with your comparison to the internal combustion engine. These work in part because of friction (otherwise the bolts wouldn't stay in place, for instance). I guess we can rule out mechanical engineering as your profession. As for the other things you mention, they are
Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The discussion of the creative days then goes on to refer to things on the Earth, as far as I read. So, the sun was present first in the account before the things that took place in the creative days.
I have always read the description of the creative days as though they were written to be understood by a human observer from a human perspective. And the first sea, land and airborne animals came into existence during the fifth creative day. I didn't see a specific order given within that description (Gen 1:20-23)
And, since I am always willing to learn, please give the original Hebrew and or Aramaic words for "birds" and also for "flying creatures", and show how they are different and how they are used, or misused, as you suggest. From my non-expert but well-informed review of translating, context is often required when one word in one language is represented by several words in another language, and some words have complex mappings.
What I am getting at here is that some translations of the Genesis account use "flying creatures" because the context says "let [word describing animals with wings] fly over the earth" and also "and every winged [word describing animals with wings] according to its kind". The word translated "kind" is Hebrew lemi-noh', Greek ge'nos, Latin ge'nus and has a meaniong different from that used by evolutionints, according to linguistic scholars. "Bird" would be too specific because many things that fly are not "birds" in the modern sense of the word. But Genesis was not written using the 17th-21st century sense of the word. See Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary.
And for the record, you seem to have a big problem with Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not believe I cited any of their works in any of these posts. You seem to know them quite well. An axe to grind, perhaps?
> No one is claiming that any of that stuff comes into existence by pure chance, any more than scientists claim that biological structures and processes are the result of pure chance. The theory of evoltion is about a mechanism.
Okay, so if not by pure chance, then by what mechanisim? Please describe the mechanism on how life began from non-life and describe its proof via experimentation, lest you start sounding like creationist.
By the way, Hoyle is dead, in case you hadn't heard.
> Yeah, and that's why scientists don't take Hoyle seriously when he starts trying to support his belief in panspermia.
Here's a website that shows support for panspermia. : http://www.panspermia.org/intro.htm . I like the NASA ones, myself. They'll be happy to know you do not consider them to be "serious scientists".
> I have, however, demonstrated that you and Behe don't understand the subject matter you are so doggedly criticizing.
No, you have not demonstrated anything. 10^50 is such a low probability that it is dismissed as being so remote as to never happen in nature unassisted by intelligence. We're talking 10^40,000. And I gave the citation for these numbers. Argue with Hoyle and Wickramasinge if you think they erred. It would make you seem better researched if you supply rebuttal figures and cite your reference.
As for rushing to publication, it seems that since you believe you have perfected evolution theory to the point of fact, knowing in all detail how exactly it works and can no doubt reporduce it experimentally, I suggest the same for you. Publish this before anyone else does. I believe that beyond the mindless parrots of basic Darwinsim, no one serious in science believes that the exact manner and method of evolution has been described in complete harmony and proven to work. Other than you, apparently. It is still a deeply fragmanted theory with lots of conflicts in the details, never experimentally established even in the most basic detail, never mind as a coherent whole. Its proponents are just as guilty of brow-beating dogma as anyone ever has been.
To disprove a theory, one simply needs to point out a case in which that theory is false. Behe does this, Hoyle does this, and do many others. The work-arounds postulated by others to deal with these sad realities (for evolutionists) have never been justified against and never reconciled with the collateral problems they cause to other parts of the sea of conflicting notions of evolution.
To prove a theory is right, the mechanism must be described and then shown to be correct experimentally, otherwise it remains a theory, no matter how uncomfortable that is for its proponents. This is the scientific method.
And clearly you have confused the concepts of scientific method, fact and theory. I have not.
So, um, how old is Origin of Species? Should I refrain from quoting Newton? Einstein? Archimedes? Bacon? How "new" does basic science need to be to make it credible in your eyes? Do you only quote people younger than yourself or from works published after your birth? Do you yourself never quote anyone? You seem to rely on this talk.origins website rather heavily for someone who claims to be a purely original thinker.
I was unaware that all living organisms are capable of producing 100% of the enzymes they need to sustain life.
Behe's conclusions are recent and unchallenged. While it may be true that Behe, et al. believe that life can evolve from life, they clearly believe that it cannot sponateously create itself from non-life. No one has said in these posts what is responsible for Behe's Irreducible Complexity theory solving problem. Nor has anyone corrected the probabilities offered, nor addressed that the quotes I have given include proper citations from distinguished scientists and respected works and journals. Just replies of sophomoric counter-positions lacking true substance.
As for sticking to "scientific mainstream" you seem to mean sticking only to those writings and authors that agree with you. Well, I choose the path of Galileo, a man who pursued what he himself believed was right, and specifically avoided conforming to populist viewpoints (i.e., "mainstream") simply to "get along". Now, of course, you will no doubt point out that he strayed from religionists, which is true, but the motivation of the religionists of his day was not the defense of scriptural truths per se, but rather to avoid upsetting the status quo. In this, you share the same dogmatic "go along to get along or we'll ruin you" position as the 16th century Catholic church.
This is posted as a rebuttal on the length of the Bible's "creative days".
At its first use in Genesis 1:5 ("a"), the use of "day" has the meaning of the lighted portion of the solar day, not 24 hours, whereas the use of the word "day" at Genesis 1:14 has the sense of a 24 hour day. The use regarding the creative days is markedly different from either of these.
The use of the word "day" at Genesis 1:5b, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31 all include the sense of a beginning and and ending. Each includes the concept of an evening and a morning, which marked the progression to the next day. This was true only for the first six "creative days".
The seventh creative day, mentioned at Genesis 2:3 begins, but has no corresponding end. In fact our time is included in the period of the seventh creative day. At the very least, then, a creative day is at least 6,000 years long, and that assumes that each creative day is marked in consistent increments of time and not by the starting and ending of specific tasks. I believe the evidence supports that the duration creative day is not a fixed and equivalent unit of time, but rather the start and completion of a specific set of tasks. This view is not a new view; it is supported by respected reference works such as A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol I, pg 613), edited by P Schaff, dating back to 1894.
Furthermore, it should be self-evident that the God of the Bible does not mark time in human 24 hour days. For those who need Biblical corroboration, please note the use Ps90:2,4. For Christians, note the illiustration used by the Apostle Peter at 2Pet3:8, and the Apostle Paul at Heb4:1-10.
The beginning of Genesis explains what God did and the order in which he did them. It also explains that these things were accomplished in six successive and distinct waves. This sets the stage to explain the creation of man, and the purpose for doing so. It is not meant as a tutorial on how God did it, nor is it meant to say precisely how long in human terms it took. These two latter aspects are absent because they are not relevant, What has been provided in the account is ample to establish God's authority over man as his Creator and Lifegiver, which is the point. (Evolution, on the other hand seeks to prove that man has no Creator and therefore is responsible to no one other than himself.) Only when assumptions are made respecting the exact length of time (which is done presumptively) do "scientists have create for themselves a basis to refute what is written, because Genesis is in harmony with science on the order of events, and therefore beyond reproach. Given that Moses, the penman of Genesis account, was so well ahead of science on this matter, the account must be refuted at all costs by those who do not wish to be bound by the other ramifications.
The idea that Behe says that evolution as it exists is at best incomplete is itself sufficient to undermine the current basis of the theory of evolution. If Behe is right, that evolution is not responsible for the creation of life, then what might that be?
Here is a bit of scientific and mathematical fact. It is a fact that protiens used by living organisms are comprised of very complex molecules. Now, the odds of forming even the simplest protien by pure chance is 10^113. For sure, mathemeticians draw the line of impossibility at 10^50. Of course, there are some 2,000 protiens that serve as enzymes, which are absolutely required for sustaining life. What are the chances they came together even once in all time? You guessed it: 10^40,000, which is to say, a number rather larger than what it takes for mathematical impossibility. Thus, despite any other conjecture, it has been proven to be mathematically impossible for life to have come about by random chemical action. In his work Evolution from Space, Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that this is an "outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." He added, "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." Evolution from Space, p.24
Furthermore, Francis Hitching wrote "Protiens depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protien." (The Neck of the Giraffe, Francis Hitching, p.66) This leaves a paradox rasied by chemist Richard Dickerson in the Sept '78 Scientific American, pg. 73: "Which came first," the protien or the DNA? He asserts: "The answer must be, 'They developed in parallel.'" So the answer to the age-old question, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?", according to this logic is -- drumroll, please -- : Neither! They arrived simultaneously! There, problem solved!...clever...very clever.
Your assertion that it is okay to say that evolution is correct for the most complex things in the universe but takes intelligence to create the far simpler things is illogical. Show me a house or a autombile or a stone arrowhead or a cave painting of a horse that came into existence purely by chance, and then convincingly demonstrate how they came to be by pure chance, and you might just begin to convince me.
Simply saying that creationists have not proven there case with hard evidence and that evolutionists don't have to do the same thing because it's 'obvious by observation that they are correct' is pure intellectual dishonesty, in my view.
As for misrepresenting how scientists think, well, they are not in agreement. There are hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of conflicting ideas on the details of evolution. It is impossible to be an evolutioninst of one school of thought without being in basic disagreement with all the rest. So it impossible to singularly misrepresent how they think. If, alternatively, you are suggesting that I do not know how science works, well I think that if you can't demonstrate how it works by showing that your theory describes it sufficiently well by experimentation, it is a theory and not fact. I do believe that this is the mainstream view.
Interesting idea, that humans aren't "infinitely anything." Perhaps you have found the boundaries to all things human. If so, my sincere apology, I wasn't aware anyone had...must have missed the/. post.
However, I would argue that we do not know how most parts of the human body work. If we did, we could, for instance, stop aging and death, or accomplish still more mundane things like cure diseases such as AIDS without effort. For certain, there would be a great many researchers out of work by now. Add to that the notion that all man's great "inventions" are simply copies of things found in nature: if it requires intelligence to copy these things, is it not logical to conclude that there was originally an intelligence to think them up in the first place?
Now, as coincidence would have it, I am an electronics engineer. But for the answer to your question on the atomic workings of electricity, I think you meant to say that you are not a physicist, did you not? Nevertheless, I believe that it is safe to say that we do know exactly how electricity works. On the other hand, how electricity relates to the other forces in the universe is not known (see: Einstein's failed attenmpt at a Unified Field theory). While I used a completely acceptable linguistic device to emphasize the [currently] incalcuable difference between two things, you were factually incorrect. I point this out because it seems to be your basis for undermining my position, and not to be a twit and one-up you.
My original point was to highlight the irony that evolutionists and creationists are equally dependent upon faith, and as such, neither can accuse the other of being closed-minded or unscientific, despite the evolutionists' claim that they are of a higher intellectual caliber than creationists. I also underscored the basic difference between science and religion: How? vs. Why?. These two disciplines have different objectives and thus cannot be held to the same metrics. Relevence to the source post is that saying that the existence of ice cubes in space proves that life evolved from non-life requires a bit of an intellectual stretch, to say the least.
If evolution were "fact", then it would be possible to reproduce the process experimentally. To be scientific "fact", we must, by definition, know exactly "how" and thus be able to reproduce the action -- or at the very least prove the observed effect is reproducable, which has never been done, despite the popular folklore-based belief that it has). But this has yet to be done (hence it is still theory). Stanley Miller came as close as anyone when he "created" amino acids from "organic soup". But it was quickly proven that the solution the amino acids were in would prevent them from coalescing into anything, but rather, they could only decompose. He ended his career in utter frustration over this point. But the one pro-creation element in all his experiments that could not be avoided: Who did Miller himself represent in the experiment if not an intelligent creator? In the actual event, who takes the place of Miller?
Pejorative use of the term "Religious" to discount the views of others originates with those who cannot prove their points in any meaningful way.
The case for creation completely embraces the notion that the universe began in a "Big Bang" or similar act of creation. Ironically, Sir Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" to humiliate those that felt the universe was created in an instant (he favored the Steady State idea that the universe always existed, and hence was not created).
Most people get hung up on the Bible's account of creation because of the use of the word "day" in description of the order of creative events up to the creation of man. However, a close study of the word shows that the sense is not a solar day (24 hrs) but rather a period of time. This is a valid definition then and now (e.g., "back in my grandfather's day..."). In fact, this is the only logical view of the word since time marked by our solar day would have had no definition for much of the creation account (it requires that the sun and earth be created and that there were a cognitive observer who could conceptualize time -- i.e., a human). However, the order of events given in the creation account are absolutely in agreement with modern evolution accounts, and is completely accurate based on current science's view of the order of events. It is important to understand that the Bible explains why things are, not how they were made. Science focuses on how, religion focuses on why. They are, to some extent, orthogonal concepts.
There are many renowned and respected scientists that use the scientific method to disprove the theory of evolution. One such theory is called the "Irreducible Complexity Theory." It argues that living organisms are so complex that they cannot have a singular chemical starting point, but rather come to a point where the intracacies are so interdependent that it becomes a mathematical impossibility for them to form spontaneously. Which leads to a point: Evolution is still a theory and remains unproved. The irony is that no one would argue that a laptop computer ever came into existence on its own, out of the random swirlings of sand and oil (an evolutionist's view), but in the next breath argue that in the case of humans and all other life, which is inarguably inifinitely more complex, did come into existance that way.
This pertains to the main article because "fossils" only prove prior existence of something. They do not prove how those things came into existence. Such a conclusion is an imaginative leap. (As an aside, if fossil hunters had found the proof they needed to unequivocally support evolution, they would not still be looking for "it".) The named article, on the evidence, speaks neither for nor against creation. They just proved that yesterday's beliefs were wrong on the face of the new evidence (there were far fewer "fossils" than expected).
Religionists always get the bad rap of being closed-minded, but I think that parent post shows that evolutionists are just as closed-minded. They too are disparaging towards those who do not accept their theories as fact without question, especially when those very beliefs are actually based on blind faith in the concusions of other like-minded people. It seems to me that evolutionists and creationists are identical in this way: they both depend completely on faith.
these "leaders" would be advocating gifting students wrenches at taxpayer expense and teaching them how to work on steam engines. This is simply the current-technology equivalent to railroad mechanic training.
Lest we not forget the ultimate goal for modern capitalistic society is for public schools churn out little consumer-producers that do not have the skills to realize that they have been enslaved to perpetual budget-deficit debt and recurring fiat-currency frauds.
It's not always that simple. I purchased a Compaq (ok, stop laughing) and compaq will not release video drivers for anything except xp (which i refuse to run). It's an ordinary radeon mobility but for some reason no drivers except the xp drivers will allow it to run in anything except 640x480, not even the 'doze2k drivers work. ATI sez they can't release drivers for it. Compaq wouldn't take it back because, they said, it stated plainly on the box "designed for xp" or some lame crap like that. This evidently means "windoze xp-only appliance". I have sworn off dell/compaq/hp laptops until they change this policy of forcing a particular OS.
What a sad, simplistic view. I doubt anyone on/. would support this action against a sysop where a user snagged some kiddiepr0n via the corporate intranet because they 'should have known.'
This is not a case of corporate accounting fraud, whre the CFO and CEO claim that they "didn't know". We're talking about some of the cleverest programmers on one side working to fool the cleverest programmers on the other side. And caught in the spokes are innocent people like my 7 year-old who is trying to research ladybugs or my folks who are in their 70's struggling to grasp the intracacies of e-mail (yes, 12:00 still blinking on the vcr). Most people don't have a clue about the computers they use. If they did, there would not be the need for company windoze and wacintosh "experts".
The fact that witch-hunts like happen doesn't surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that people who should understand the level of complexity of this problem and its intractability, and who consider themselves geeks and experts would presume that the the non-geeks and non-experts would solve such a problem, or "know" even how to find such a problem, that the geeks and experts cannot themselves do without considerable frustration and effort. And whatever "solutions" are found are always ex post facto, which means the crimes have already occured. It takes a special kind of stupidity to believe that crime can be preempted.
The most bone-chilling aspect to all of these "war-against-what-not" laws is their cornerstone: the Presumption of Guilt. When someone who is clearly innocent, or even probably innocent, or even on-an-outside-chance innocent, have to fight to get their lives back, the "laws" are most certainly worse than the "crimes". True offenders will eventually be found out without having to destroy lives of innocent people.
But, if we are to presume guilt, why not simply jail everyone from birth until the prove that they will never violate laws of any kind. With some 150,000 pages to the US Code of Federal Regulations, alone, never mid state and local laws, international laws, and federal, state and local laws of the other 235-odd countries, should be no problem at all. Once everyone gets those memorized, we can teach them all about interpretation and selective enforcement, and then we can realize the dream of "killing all the lawyers."
"Difficult times hard to deal with" and "anguish of nations not knowing the way out" is how the Christian Bile describes the 'end times'. Sounds like the 'end times' to me.
Oh yeah, right, they "developed" a "wireless switch" which is utter nonsense. And "full 11Mb/s" ?!? More nonsense. Phased-array antenna technology is no big deal, been around forever. YAWN
Every 802.11a/b/g system can do full bandwidth. Stop making it sound like Mabuhay/Vivato can do something others cannot. They are simply yet-another-antenna-company hawking overpriced, oversize antennas developed 50 years ago as an innovation. SNORE...ZZZ...SNORE...ZZZ
As long as the 12sqft antenna doesn't move around like a Old Ironside's mainsail in the wind, and you can afford the 20 grand for the thing, and you have a place to put it that won't get shot at, and the client devices don't move around more than a few inches, and there isn't anyone in the same antenna beam pattern running at a slow speed (or emitting noise) directly behind you or in front of you or right next to you.
The concept of a "wireless switch" is ridiculous, a true oxymoron. It annoys me every time I hear it. It is misleading and snake oil. If such a thing could be done then CSMA/CD would work too. CSMA/CA is used because you simply cannot know who will use the medium or where they'll be. Such knowledge is key to ethernet switching. The wireless model (esp the way 802.11 works) is a hub. People will say anything to raise millions from VC's. Trouble is, to eventually dump the company to dumb-money public investors, some early-adopter suckers have to learn the hard way by buying what is essentially hi-tech scrap.
I think I'm going to recommend that all marketing departments lurk/. and post silly statements like this to trick the ignorant.
Clearly there is a difference between a law that stipulates a product include local language (common sense if you want to sell anything) and the French laws. The law you found seems to endeavor to ensure that locals are not confounded by product language, which may include important details on, say, safety. The law you found seems to legalize, and even insist upon, the use of English if that is what is spoken locally.
What the "French-too, French-first" laws endeavor to do is make sure that even in areas that do not speak French locally, products must include French. These laws do not similarly mandate and enforce the use of English. It's this hypocracy that irks me.
Now, if the Francophiles made a law that required every C programmer to publish in Pascal too, but not the other way round, well, I might just move to Paris...
Slashdot Mirror
Please supply a scriptural reference for your assertion that the Bible says the flying things came before "cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." No disrespect intended, but I'd like to see for myself, including the context and then check a few translations for the sake of thoroughness.
Science is a process of involving the quest for the true way something works, mainly involving stepwise refinement of theories until they can be proved through experimentation to be correct.
If a theory turns out to be false, it doesn't mean it was never "science" in the first place. Such a statement is idiotic. Once a theory emerges as proven correct via the scientific method, it can be considered fact, until otherwise disproven by a more rigorous application of the scientific method (e.g., cold fusion).
Your sad condition is probably due to a lack of a university degree, like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Thats it! Your theme song should be "If I Only Had a Brain..."
You have absolutely no basis for judging my credentials, or reaching the conclusions you have about my education. It is simply a weak attempt at diverting your lack of defensible position.
You said you never heard of an electronics engineer. Fine. I supplied with a AAA reference of people that actively refer to themselves as such. Shame on you for then saying that your daddy never used the term so you're excused for your ingorance. And you never heard of it, not even given your grand circle of acquaintances. Grow up. You are making a diversionary attack because you can't make a cogent defense of your own faith, probably because you don't know what you actually believe. The "my daddy said" defense, very profound. Guess you're not a lawyer either.
More on the "my daddy said" defense. A quick google search reveals a number of universities worldwide that grant bachelor's degrees in "electronics engineering". Maybe you daddy's so old he predates the modern notion of electronics, but that's his problem and your clear misrepresentation of the facts. Thus, you are the one who has deceived readers, not I. I have proven that you do not know what you're talking about, even when a simple google search is all that is needed to get the correct answer. Once again, you cannot clearly articulate your own point of view, which means that you do not understand it yourself. You do not supply your own credentials, or even suggest that you have any at all in any field of endeavor. Your posts lack any real sense of knowledge of mechanics, biology, medicine, electricity, physics, or anything else for that matter. You don't even realize that the principle teaching of evolution is life from non-living matter or understand its implications. You are profoundly unfamiliar with scientific method, which clearly mandates that the transition from theory to fact is only possible through verification of the mechanisms. So, if you say that evolution is fact because you know life came from non-life but you can't say how it happened -- precisely -- and prove it really works that way, well then your just another loser with a theory. And maintaining that it can no longer be proven because it was a once-for-all-time thing and it's a mystery. but you're sure it really happened anyway, you sound foolish, worse even than the most dogmatic religionist.
At least I have the intellectual honesty to say creation will never be proved in a laboratory and therefore will always remain a theory under the tenets of the scientific method. Most who espouse evolution theory say it's no longer a theory because lots of people really, really beleive it, and we can
Thomas Edison, that great inventor and engineer, had no university degree that I know of, and many others that I consider fine engineers also have no university eduation (many come from the military or are in the software specialty). And I am quite sure there are many other distinguished engineers also are sans university or college diplomas. Most people I know with this hang-up rely on their sheepskin and not their actual professional performance. The point is it is always about what you accomplish, not about who you learned the basics from. When one is incapable of genuaine acheivement, all they are left with is 'who you learned it from.' The sure sign of an idiot in my book is when the need your resume or insist on giving you theirs as a basis for respect. And while we're on the subect, Jesus never graduated from a university either, and he became rather well-known and well respected, but I digress...
But resume time is upon us. I myself have been creating circuits and systems for over twenty years, and have several US and European "pioneering" patents on devices methods and processes. I have designed fiber optic equipment (linear and digital), digital electronics, RF transmitters and receivers, and so on. I have designed communications networks as with the title of "Chief Engineer" and other similar titles for some of the worlds largest corporations. That should suffice to prove that the title "engineer" exists independently from the concept of a university degree. (I never give the name of the institution of higher learning I attendedc to people I do not know, it makes them focus on where I went to school rather than what I said or did). The things I write stand on their own merit. I do not feel the personal need to receive authority on the basis of the schools I could afford to go to, or that my family had the political connections to get me into.
That said, I feel it is necessary to point out that the abbreviation "IEEE" stands for -- you guessed it -- "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers." Hopefully, this meets your proof criteria and saves me the pain of listing every instution that offers Electronics Engineering degrees. You should really get out more.
Since I have never heard of anyone that has never heard of an electronics engineer or a dgree in said same, perhaps you should give your credentials, inventions, claims to fame, ad nauseum. Frankly, now I'm now a little suspicious of you. So many evolutionists exaggerate their credentials...
To address the matter at hand, bacterial and human reproduction alike, the observation is that life only comes from life, never from non-life. This key aspect of evolution has never been observed in a way that conforms to any present or past evolutionary theory, and not even in a way that doesn't conform (other than one that involves intelligent creation component). The basic claim of modern evolutionists is that life evolved from non-life, even though Darwin himself disallowed this in his book Origin of Species.
Alas, I must take issue with your comparison to the internal combustion engine. These work in part because of friction (otherwise the bolts wouldn't stay in place, for instance). I guess we can rule out mechanical engineering as your profession. As for the other things you mention, they are
I have always read the description of the creative days as though they were written to be understood by a human observer from a human perspective. And the first sea, land and airborne animals came into existence during the fifth creative day. I didn't see a specific order given within that description (Gen 1:20-23)
And, since I am always willing to learn, please give the original Hebrew and or Aramaic words for "birds" and also for "flying creatures", and show how they are different and how they are used, or misused, as you suggest. From my non-expert but well-informed review of translating, context is often required when one word in one language is represented by several words in another language, and some words have complex mappings.
What I am getting at here is that some translations of the Genesis account use "flying creatures" because the context says "let [word describing animals with wings] fly over the earth" and also "and every winged [word describing animals with wings] according to its kind". The word translated "kind" is Hebrew lemi-noh', Greek ge'nos, Latin ge'nus and has a meaniong different from that used by evolutionints, according to linguistic scholars. "Bird" would be too specific because many things that fly are not "birds" in the modern sense of the word. But Genesis was not written using the 17th-21st century sense of the word. See Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary.
And for the record, you seem to have a big problem with Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not believe I cited any of their works in any of these posts. You seem to know them quite well. An axe to grind, perhaps?
Okay, so if not by pure chance, then by what mechanisim? Please describe the mechanism on how life began from non-life and describe its proof via experimentation, lest you start sounding like creationist.
By the way, Hoyle is dead, in case you hadn't heard.
Here's a website that shows support for panspermia. : http://www.panspermia.org/intro.htm . I like the NASA ones, myself. They'll be happy to know you do not consider them to be "serious scientists".
No, you have not demonstrated anything. 10^50 is such a low probability that it is dismissed as being so remote as to never happen in nature unassisted by intelligence. We're talking 10^40,000. And I gave the citation for these numbers. Argue with Hoyle and Wickramasinge if you think they erred. It would make you seem better researched if you supply rebuttal figures and cite your reference.
As for rushing to publication, it seems that since you believe you have perfected evolution theory to the point of fact, knowing in all detail how exactly it works and can no doubt reporduce it experimentally, I suggest the same for you. Publish this before anyone else does. I believe that beyond the mindless parrots of basic Darwinsim, no one serious in science believes that the exact manner and method of evolution has been described in complete harmony and proven to work. Other than you, apparently. It is still a deeply fragmanted theory with lots of conflicts in the details, never experimentally established even in the most basic detail, never mind as a coherent whole. Its proponents are just as guilty of brow-beating dogma as anyone ever has been.
To disprove a theory, one simply needs to point out a case in which that theory is false. Behe does this, Hoyle does this, and do many others. The work-arounds postulated by others to deal with these sad realities (for evolutionists) have never been justified against and never reconciled with the collateral problems they cause to other parts of the sea of conflicting notions of evolution.
To prove a theory is right, the mechanism must be described and then shown to be correct experimentally, otherwise it remains a theory, no matter how uncomfortable that is for its proponents. This is the scientific method.
And clearly you have confused the concepts of scientific method, fact and theory. I have not.
I was unaware that all living organisms are capable of producing 100% of the enzymes they need to sustain life.
Behe's conclusions are recent and unchallenged. While it may be true that Behe, et al. believe that life can evolve from life, they clearly believe that it cannot sponateously create itself from non-life. No one has said in these posts what is responsible for Behe's Irreducible Complexity theory solving problem. Nor has anyone corrected the probabilities offered, nor addressed that the quotes I have given include proper citations from distinguished scientists and respected works and journals. Just replies of sophomoric counter-positions lacking true substance.
As for sticking to "scientific mainstream" you seem to mean sticking only to those writings and authors that agree with you. Well, I choose the path of Galileo, a man who pursued what he himself believed was right, and specifically avoided conforming to populist viewpoints (i.e., "mainstream") simply to "get along". Now, of course, you will no doubt point out that he strayed from religionists, which is true, but the motivation of the religionists of his day was not the defense of scriptural truths per se, but rather to avoid upsetting the status quo. In this, you share the same dogmatic "go along to get along or we'll ruin you" position as the 16th century Catholic church.
At its first use in Genesis 1:5 ("a"), the use of "day" has the meaning of the lighted portion of the solar day, not 24 hours, whereas the use of the word "day" at Genesis 1:14 has the sense of a 24 hour day. The use regarding the creative days is markedly different from either of these.
The use of the word "day" at Genesis 1:5b, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31 all include the sense of a beginning and and ending. Each includes the concept of an evening and a morning, which marked the progression to the next day. This was true only for the first six "creative days".
The seventh creative day, mentioned at Genesis 2:3 begins, but has no corresponding end. In fact our time is included in the period of the seventh creative day. At the very least, then, a creative day is at least 6,000 years long, and that assumes that each creative day is marked in consistent increments of time and not by the starting and ending of specific tasks. I believe the evidence supports that the duration creative day is not a fixed and equivalent unit of time, but rather the start and completion of a specific set of tasks. This view is not a new view; it is supported by respected reference works such as A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol I, pg 613), edited by P Schaff, dating back to 1894.
Furthermore, it should be self-evident that the God of the Bible does not mark time in human 24 hour days. For those who need Biblical corroboration, please note the use Ps90:2,4. For Christians, note the illiustration used by the Apostle Peter at 2Pet3:8, and the Apostle Paul at Heb4:1-10.
The beginning of Genesis explains what God did and the order in which he did them. It also explains that these things were accomplished in six successive and distinct waves. This sets the stage to explain the creation of man, and the purpose for doing so. It is not meant as a tutorial on how God did it, nor is it meant to say precisely how long in human terms it took. These two latter aspects are absent because they are not relevant, What has been provided in the account is ample to establish God's authority over man as his Creator and Lifegiver, which is the point. (Evolution, on the other hand seeks to prove that man has no Creator and therefore is responsible to no one other than himself.) Only when assumptions are made respecting the exact length of time (which is done presumptively) do "scientists have create for themselves a basis to refute what is written, because Genesis is in harmony with science on the order of events, and therefore beyond reproach. Given that Moses, the penman of Genesis account, was so well ahead of science on this matter, the account must be refuted at all costs by those who do not wish to be bound by the other ramifications.
Here is a bit of scientific and mathematical fact. It is a fact that protiens used by living organisms are comprised of very complex molecules. Now, the odds of forming even the simplest protien by pure chance is 10^113. For sure, mathemeticians draw the line of impossibility at 10^50. Of course, there are some 2,000 protiens that serve as enzymes, which are absolutely required for sustaining life. What are the chances they came together even once in all time? You guessed it: 10^40,000, which is to say, a number rather larger than what it takes for mathematical impossibility. Thus, despite any other conjecture, it has been proven to be mathematically impossible for life to have come about by random chemical action. In his work Evolution from Space, Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that this is an "outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." He added, "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." Evolution from Space, p.24
Furthermore, Francis Hitching wrote "Protiens depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protien." (The Neck of the Giraffe, Francis Hitching, p.66) This leaves a paradox rasied by chemist Richard Dickerson in the Sept '78 Scientific American, pg. 73: "Which came first," the protien or the DNA? He asserts: "The answer must be, 'They developed in parallel.'" So the answer to the age-old question, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?", according to this logic is -- drumroll, please -- : Neither! They arrived simultaneously! There, problem solved! ...clever...very clever.
Your assertion that it is okay to say that evolution is correct for the most complex things in the universe but takes intelligence to create the far simpler things is illogical. Show me a house or a autombile or a stone arrowhead or a cave painting of a horse that came into existence purely by chance, and then convincingly demonstrate how they came to be by pure chance, and you might just begin to convince me.
Simply saying that creationists have not proven there case with hard evidence and that evolutionists don't have to do the same thing because it's 'obvious by observation that they are correct' is pure intellectual dishonesty, in my view.
As for misrepresenting how scientists think, well, they are not in agreement. There are hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of conflicting ideas on the details of evolution. It is impossible to be an evolutioninst of one school of thought without being in basic disagreement with all the rest. So it impossible to singularly misrepresent how they think. If, alternatively, you are suggesting that I do not know how science works, well I think that if you can't demonstrate how it works by showing that your theory describes it sufficiently well by experimentation, it is a theory and not fact. I do believe that this is the mainstream view.
You have not proven your case.
However, I would argue that we do not know how most parts of the human body work. If we did, we could, for instance, stop aging and death, or accomplish still more mundane things like cure diseases such as AIDS without effort. For certain, there would be a great many researchers out of work by now. Add to that the notion that all man's great "inventions" are simply copies of things found in nature: if it requires intelligence to copy these things, is it not logical to conclude that there was originally an intelligence to think them up in the first place?
Now, as coincidence would have it, I am an electronics engineer. But for the answer to your question on the atomic workings of electricity, I think you meant to say that you are not a physicist, did you not? Nevertheless, I believe that it is safe to say that we do know exactly how electricity works. On the other hand, how electricity relates to the other forces in the universe is not known (see: Einstein's failed attenmpt at a Unified Field theory). While I used a completely acceptable linguistic device to emphasize the [currently] incalcuable difference between two things, you were factually incorrect. I point this out because it seems to be your basis for undermining my position, and not to be a twit and one-up you.
My original point was to highlight the irony that evolutionists and creationists are equally dependent upon faith, and as such, neither can accuse the other of being closed-minded or unscientific, despite the evolutionists' claim that they are of a higher intellectual caliber than creationists. I also underscored the basic difference between science and religion: How? vs. Why?. These two disciplines have different objectives and thus cannot be held to the same metrics. Relevence to the source post is that saying that the existence of ice cubes in space proves that life evolved from non-life requires a bit of an intellectual stretch, to say the least.
If evolution were "fact", then it would be possible to reproduce the process experimentally. To be scientific "fact", we must, by definition, know exactly "how" and thus be able to reproduce the action -- or at the very least prove the observed effect is reproducable, which has never been done, despite the popular folklore-based belief that it has). But this has yet to be done (hence it is still theory). Stanley Miller came as close as anyone when he "created" amino acids from "organic soup". But it was quickly proven that the solution the amino acids were in would prevent them from coalescing into anything, but rather, they could only decompose. He ended his career in utter frustration over this point. But the one pro-creation element in all his experiments that could not be avoided: Who did Miller himself represent in the experiment if not an intelligent creator? In the actual event, who takes the place of Miller?
The case for creation completely embraces the notion that the universe began in a "Big Bang" or similar act of creation. Ironically, Sir Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" to humiliate those that felt the universe was created in an instant (he favored the Steady State idea that the universe always existed, and hence was not created).
Most people get hung up on the Bible's account of creation because of the use of the word "day" in description of the order of creative events up to the creation of man. However, a close study of the word shows that the sense is not a solar day (24 hrs) but rather a period of time. This is a valid definition then and now (e.g., "back in my grandfather's day..."). In fact, this is the only logical view of the word since time marked by our solar day would have had no definition for much of the creation account (it requires that the sun and earth be created and that there were a cognitive observer who could conceptualize time -- i.e., a human). However, the order of events given in the creation account are absolutely in agreement with modern evolution accounts, and is completely accurate based on current science's view of the order of events. It is important to understand that the Bible explains why things are, not how they were made. Science focuses on how, religion focuses on why. They are, to some extent, orthogonal concepts.
There are many renowned and respected scientists that use the scientific method to disprove the theory of evolution. One such theory is called the "Irreducible Complexity Theory." It argues that living organisms are so complex that they cannot have a singular chemical starting point, but rather come to a point where the intracacies are so interdependent that it becomes a mathematical impossibility for them to form spontaneously. Which leads to a point: Evolution is still a theory and remains unproved. The irony is that no one would argue that a laptop computer ever came into existence on its own, out of the random swirlings of sand and oil (an evolutionist's view), but in the next breath argue that in the case of humans and all other life, which is inarguably inifinitely more complex, did come into existance that way.
This pertains to the main article because "fossils" only prove prior existence of something. They do not prove how those things came into existence. Such a conclusion is an imaginative leap. (As an aside, if fossil hunters had found the proof they needed to unequivocally support evolution, they would not still be looking for "it".) The named article, on the evidence, speaks neither for nor against creation. They just proved that yesterday's beliefs were wrong on the face of the new evidence (there were far fewer "fossils" than expected).
Religionists always get the bad rap of being closed-minded, but I think that parent post shows that evolutionists are just as closed-minded. They too are disparaging towards those who do not accept their theories as fact without question, especially when those very beliefs are actually based on blind faith in the concusions of other like-minded people. It seems to me that evolutionists and creationists are identical in this way: they both depend completely on faith.
Now that's true irony.
Lest we not forget the ultimate goal for modern capitalistic society is for public schools churn out little consumer-producers that do not have the skills to realize that they have been enslaved to perpetual budget-deficit debt and recurring fiat-currency frauds.
Good, it's settled now. I wish Gates would have said this sooner. Goodbye Linux.
It's not always that simple. I purchased a Compaq (ok, stop laughing) and compaq will not release video drivers for anything except xp (which i refuse to run). It's an ordinary radeon mobility but for some reason no drivers except the xp drivers will allow it to run in anything except 640x480, not even the 'doze2k drivers work. ATI sez they can't release drivers for it. Compaq wouldn't take it back because, they said, it stated plainly on the box "designed for xp" or some lame crap like that. This evidently means "windoze xp-only appliance". I have sworn off dell/compaq/hp laptops until they change this policy of forcing a particular OS.
This is not a case of corporate accounting fraud, whre the CFO and CEO claim that they "didn't know". We're talking about some of the cleverest programmers on one side working to fool the cleverest programmers on the other side. And caught in the spokes are innocent people like my 7 year-old who is trying to research ladybugs or my folks who are in their 70's struggling to grasp the intracacies of e-mail (yes, 12:00 still blinking on the vcr). Most people don't have a clue about the computers they use. If they did, there would not be the need for company windoze and wacintosh "experts".
The fact that witch-hunts like happen doesn't surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that people who should understand the level of complexity of this problem and its intractability, and who consider themselves geeks and experts would presume that the the non-geeks and non-experts would solve such a problem, or "know" even how to find such a problem, that the geeks and experts cannot themselves do without considerable frustration and effort. And whatever "solutions" are found are always ex post facto, which means the crimes have already occured. It takes a special kind of stupidity to believe that crime can be preempted.
The most bone-chilling aspect to all of these "war-against-what-not" laws is their cornerstone: the Presumption of Guilt. When someone who is clearly innocent, or even probably innocent, or even on-an-outside-chance innocent, have to fight to get their lives back, the "laws" are most certainly worse than the "crimes". True offenders will eventually be found out without having to destroy lives of innocent people.
But, if we are to presume guilt, why not simply jail everyone from birth until the prove that they will never violate laws of any kind. With some 150,000 pages to the US Code of Federal Regulations, alone, never mid state and local laws, international laws, and federal, state and local laws of the other 235-odd countries, should be no problem at all. Once everyone gets those memorized, we can teach them all about interpretation and selective enforcement, and then we can realize the dream of "killing all the lawyers."
"Difficult times hard to deal with" and "anguish of nations not knowing the way out" is how the Christian Bile describes the 'end times'. Sounds like the 'end times' to me.
Ouch! the Truth hurts!
Every 802.11a/b/g system can do full bandwidth. Stop making it sound like Mabuhay/Vivato can do something others cannot. They are simply yet-another-antenna-company hawking overpriced, oversize antennas developed 50 years ago as an innovation. SNORE...ZZZ...SNORE...ZZZ
Back to the RIAA lobby's offices with you...
Phased array antennas have been around for a long long time. What they "developed" is hype. Next this we'll hear is that they "developed" radio.
The concept of a "wireless switch" is ridiculous, a true oxymoron. It annoys me every time I hear it. It is misleading and snake oil. If such a thing could be done then CSMA/CD would work too. CSMA/CA is used because you simply cannot know who will use the medium or where they'll be. Such knowledge is key to ethernet switching. The wireless model (esp the way 802.11 works) is a hub. People will say anything to raise millions from VC's. Trouble is, to eventually dump the company to dumb-money public investors, some early-adopter suckers have to learn the hard way by buying what is essentially hi-tech scrap.
I think I'm going to recommend that all marketing departments lurk /. and post silly statements like this to trick the ignorant.
What the "French-too, French-first" laws endeavor to do is make sure that even in areas that do not speak French locally, products must include French. These laws do not similarly mandate and enforce the use of English. It's this hypocracy that irks me.
Now, if the Francophiles made a law that required every C programmer to publish in Pascal too, but not the other way round, well, I might just move to Paris...
you just can't those mass media talking heads
Pure Mafioso: "Look, Mr Small Shop Owner, pay me and no one will break your windows or your legs. If you don't, we'll break them."
Rather similar to the IRS' value proposition too.