very true, I suppose my excuse... if you would allow me that, for wanting to allow ID is that Darwinism is so often associated with it's own theology of, accidental existance or logical luck, which really has nothing to do with evolution, but some people's perspective of evolution. I think if either are to be taught, they must be within the bounds of what they are.
Prove that something came from nothing... or that nothing came from something or that something came from itself. We cannot prove why we are physically here. Intellegent Design is more valid than "Darwinism" because Darwinism doesn't ever try to answer that question. Please people stop mixing darwin/evolution/creation, I think all of that bull is a result of christian/anti-christian bias. Lunatics aside, you can't rule out the possibility of a creator, if you do your theology is in the way.
"There's no observable current phenomena which can illustrate that process"
I think you need to read the book in the article.
It isn't about a religion, it isn't about a story. ID is about a beginning, was the beginning inert or active. That is the question. If the beginning was an active participant that set boundrys rules or what have you then, ID is your belief. If you believe the rules are themselves the beginning, you are evolutionist.
Nice...
The question then becomes, is there a being that is a first cause or a matter that is a first cause. Would you concour that this is the essence of the disagreement? Niether can be proven yet. Neither can be disproved yet. --- Oh and any proof for one, can be proof of the other until we can differentiate incidence from accident.
Where is the "bible" in this...? Where are the fundamentalists? Scientifically they are absent. This is a theory, similar to the big bang with the bang as a creature. Please hold your idiodic responses. I have heard them all, many many many times.
And your point....? Why do people still "believe" in it? Shouldn't it be called Moore's Guess, or Moore's explaination, or even Moore's Prediction... I like that one.
Today's scientists grasp for answers and when things "fit" they become probable truth even without objective proof, not just evidence of some truth that is as yet unprooven.
The key to good science is the ability to not have a final answer but instead define and objectively find a solution to a problem that can be quantified within the boundry of the need.
If the problem cannot be solved within the scope of it's boundries than say so, don't BS. Moore's Law is BS... of course he didn't define a law... he just predicted a chain of events.
The answer is 42. Just deal with it.
The "law" will be stretched to include multiprocessing and a multitude of other imporperly attributed leaps in technology... (this helps to solidify how much BS is so called science)
What data store puts everything in one basket? I don't think that the online solution is that flawed. Intellegent engineering of the storage can minimize the amount of data gathered. How do you protect your network?
How many of you have relatives who call you when they can't see standard buttons in IE?T his is the wrong direction, users can't protect a pc, get serious. Save the stuff on a providers site who can be held accountable and make a buck.
Where the heck is Larry Ellision when you need him! Get the stupid PC out of the houses people. If I could just surf, or just do work instead of maintain my pc I would pay a monthly fee. If I didn't have to upgrade hardware and was just served a picture... that would be fine with my wife. When did the PC start to make sense? I have never understood why we would push a tool on users, instead of a product. A dishwasher cleans stuff, a fridge cools stuff, a monitor displays stuff... A computer is a tool for computation! We got away from computers when they became cool. Every person has to have one... a computer on every desktop has to improve productivity right? As for the guy who says porn is on every computer... That stuff is on computers because computers are designed to contain and diseminate not display! How much Porn is left on TV? Not much when you turn it off.
So my mother-in-law should only purchase a computer if she is willing to become an administrator for it, checking daily for ad-ware and viruses as well as defraging and other odd jobs? Your idea of a consumable is twisted! Gameboys are a consumable... you turn it on, and use it. PS2 and Xbox... those are consumables. PC's have been improperly marketed and expectations raised to the point where this consumable requires more maintenance than use by the average consumer. We have millions of users who have become unwitting and unwilling admins. Please tell me why Windows Update, LiveUpdate, AutoDefrag and a miriad of others try (poorly) to address that fact? Can you alter your dishwasher accidently removing the heater core? Would you ever be told to flash your stereo's radio station bios so that the new stations work? Get Serious!
DRM is fine for a day a week, a month or even a year or two... however at some point you have to say that everyone has heard the song folks! 70-90 years after death is rediculous! I propose giving artists a year after release to make money off of a recording, and only performances after that. Use it or loose it. If for some reason the recording doesen't take off the first year... great they still get to tour and make money on concerts! And don't tell me that they don't make enough money... I won't buy it. They will do fine.
NEWS is the collection of interesting relevant information that is out of the ordinary for any given person.
Why do we have people "re-writing" the news? Usually there are sources that already exist electronically. Bus accident... police reports, hospital admissions, fire reports. Why not simply tag those items together so that people have facts, and have an associated blog so the witnesses or others can get first hand info out. This isn't the pretty version however it does seem a bit dated to get all of our news filtered for us./. is an excellent example of a move to this type of news, but it is just the beginning.
Is there anything out there where one could claim reasonable profit on a produced item? Once that copywritten material has produced 300000x the cost to produce it becomes public domain? That would be in the public interest! It would promote more material and provide for the classic material to be shared by all, just like it has been for thousands of years.
"Co-exist, certainly"
-Original post-
Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution. The two ideas are not diametrically opposed.
diametrically opposed ideas cannot co-exist so you and I are not so far apart.
Plausible solution is a matter of opinion and as for God's ability to create evolution it would depend upon the definition of God.
Thank you,
"Co-exist, certainly" was my only point, and unrelated to any of the other rants proposed such as an expectation that I am a Fundamentalist Christian or that Einstein believed in anything other than theism or that science and religion are linked. We were never at a disagreement in the matter specifically at hand.
"Co-exist, certainly"
And as you can tell, I am interested in this.
The Question I posited was one of Philosophy not Science. It is very interesting to me that the responses expected and in some cases nearly demanded certain positions from me, which I do not necessarily hold to be true.
If Einstein proposed such a philosophical question, the response would be equally closed-minded.
I would be interested in understanding any and all scientific truth, even if it seemed objectionable to my religious belief. I have read nothing here contradicting my beliefs.
Thank you for being a steadfast opinion in this conversation but open and fair.
Why can one not believe that Creation and Evolution coexist logically?
You said yourself that "belief is a personal thing"
The separation of religion from science is simply the scientific process at work. Please tell me how Einstein remained a theist and produced good science? It wasn't because he was a theist or an atheist. He used reason and even his reason was motivated by a desire for theistic truth! This motivation however didn't have to destroy the scientific process. I will admit that there were times that his theism tainted his work, but any belief in any theory alters perception. The tendencies we have taint our work no matter what our design. If you would not recognize that a religious truth is possible then you eliminate the possibility from the question. This undermines the scientific method.
I don't think you understood my question.
The bottom line is that science and religion are different but not incompatible. Just because Science deals with only facts and religion deals with fact and myth or revelation does not make the two separate and incompatable. Many scientists create myth and live in a fantasy world just like some religionists.
I agree in saying that "we don't know", there is no imperical evidence that can bring us to an understanding as we know it now.
Creation as in the bible is a story that answers relational questions not technical matters. Those who think it does are not reading from history or context. They also make Judeo/Christianity into a farce.
"that has nothing to do with the naturalistic origins of life or the validity of evolutionary theory"
exactly the point,
You cannot say that evolution excludes creation
There is no correlation to exclude it objectively.
To say that evolution doesn't correlate to some peoples view of creation would be an accurate statement. - 7 earth days blah blah blah
Creation however is a separate issue from evolution and the two theorys are not incompatible.
"Life came from organic chemicals, which didn't come from "nothing"; they were part of the Earth's early environment."
Where did Earth's early environment come from?
- don't stop there.
If you limit the environment you limit the reality. Evolution works fine once there is something to evolve.
Slashdot Mirror
very true, I suppose my excuse... if you would allow me that, for wanting to allow ID is that Darwinism is so often associated with it's own theology of, accidental existance or logical luck, which really has nothing to do with evolution, but some people's perspective of evolution. I think if either are to be taught, they must be within the bounds of what they are.
Prove that something came from nothing... or that nothing came from something or that something came from itself. We cannot prove why we are physically here. Intellegent Design is more valid than "Darwinism" because Darwinism doesn't ever try to answer that question. Please people stop mixing darwin/evolution/creation, I think all of that bull is a result of christian/anti-christian bias. Lunatics aside, you can't rule out the possibility of a creator, if you do your theology is in the way.
Can I get a USB version?
Too many uses for this new robot around the house. Who needs liquid air anymore!
Read this... Cell Architecture Explained: Introduction You can't just run a new linux dist or drop a couple of cpu on a box to emulate CELL. http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.htm l
"There's no observable current phenomena which can illustrate that process" I think you need to read the book in the article. It isn't about a religion, it isn't about a story. ID is about a beginning, was the beginning inert or active. That is the question. If the beginning was an active participant that set boundrys rules or what have you then, ID is your belief. If you believe the rules are themselves the beginning, you are evolutionist.
Nice... The question then becomes, is there a being that is a first cause or a matter that is a first cause. Would you concour that this is the essence of the disagreement? Niether can be proven yet. Neither can be disproved yet. --- Oh and any proof for one, can be proof of the other until we can differentiate incidence from accident.
Where is the "bible" in this...? Where are the fundamentalists? Scientifically they are absent. This is a theory, similar to the big bang with the bang as a creature. Please hold your idiodic responses. I have heard them all, many many many times.
You are correct, I am being silly. 42
And your point....? Why do people still "believe" in it? Shouldn't it be called Moore's Guess, or Moore's explaination, or even Moore's Prediction... I like that one. Today's scientists grasp for answers and when things "fit" they become probable truth even without objective proof, not just evidence of some truth that is as yet unprooven. The key to good science is the ability to not have a final answer but instead define and objectively find a solution to a problem that can be quantified within the boundry of the need. If the problem cannot be solved within the scope of it's boundries than say so, don't BS. Moore's Law is BS... of course he didn't define a law... he just predicted a chain of events. The answer is 42. Just deal with it.
The "law" will be stretched to include multiprocessing and a multitude of other imporperly attributed leaps in technology... (this helps to solidify how much BS is so called science)
Perfect for military purposes... now they need to make a stealth model that will allow wearers to be something other than a target.
No mention of Lawnmowerman?
What data store puts everything in one basket? I don't think that the online solution is that flawed. Intellegent engineering of the storage can minimize the amount of data gathered. How do you protect your network?
How many of you have relatives who call you when they can't see standard buttons in IE?T his is the wrong direction, users can't protect a pc, get serious. Save the stuff on a providers site who can be held accountable and make a buck.
Where the heck is Larry Ellision when you need him! Get the stupid PC out of the houses people. If I could just surf, or just do work instead of maintain my pc I would pay a monthly fee. If I didn't have to upgrade hardware and was just served a picture... that would be fine with my wife. When did the PC start to make sense? I have never understood why we would push a tool on users, instead of a product. A dishwasher cleans stuff, a fridge cools stuff, a monitor displays stuff... A computer is a tool for computation! We got away from computers when they became cool. Every person has to have one... a computer on every desktop has to improve productivity right? As for the guy who says porn is on every computer... That stuff is on computers because computers are designed to contain and diseminate not display! How much Porn is left on TV? Not much when you turn it off.
So my mother-in-law should only purchase a computer if she is willing to become an administrator for it, checking daily for ad-ware and viruses as well as defraging and other odd jobs? Your idea of a consumable is twisted! Gameboys are a consumable... you turn it on, and use it. PS2 and Xbox... those are consumables. PC's have been improperly marketed and expectations raised to the point where this consumable requires more maintenance than use by the average consumer. We have millions of users who have become unwitting and unwilling admins. Please tell me why Windows Update, LiveUpdate, AutoDefrag and a miriad of others try (poorly) to address that fact? Can you alter your dishwasher accidently removing the heater core? Would you ever be told to flash your stereo's radio station bios so that the new stations work? Get Serious!
DRM is fine for a day a week, a month or even a year or two... however at some point you have to say that everyone has heard the song folks! 70-90 years after death is rediculous! I propose giving artists a year after release to make money off of a recording, and only performances after that. Use it or loose it. If for some reason the recording doesen't take off the first year... great they still get to tour and make money on concerts! And don't tell me that they don't make enough money ... I won't buy it. They will do fine.
NEWS is the collection of interesting relevant information that is out of the ordinary for any given person. Why do we have people "re-writing" the news? Usually there are sources that already exist electronically. Bus accident... police reports, hospital admissions, fire reports. Why not simply tag those items together so that people have facts, and have an associated blog so the witnesses or others can get first hand info out. This isn't the pretty version however it does seem a bit dated to get all of our news filtered for us. /. is an excellent example of a move to this type of news, but it is just the beginning.
Is there anything out there where one could claim reasonable profit on a produced item? Once that copywritten material has produced 300000x the cost to produce it becomes public domain? That would be in the public interest! It would promote more material and provide for the classic material to be shared by all, just like it has been for thousands of years.
"Co-exist, certainly" -Original post- Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution. The two ideas are not diametrically opposed. diametrically opposed ideas cannot co-exist so you and I are not so far apart. Plausible solution is a matter of opinion and as for God's ability to create evolution it would depend upon the definition of God. Thank you, "Co-exist, certainly" was my only point, and unrelated to any of the other rants proposed such as an expectation that I am a Fundamentalist Christian or that Einstein believed in anything other than theism or that science and religion are linked. We were never at a disagreement in the matter specifically at hand. "Co-exist, certainly" And as you can tell, I am interested in this. The Question I posited was one of Philosophy not Science. It is very interesting to me that the responses expected and in some cases nearly demanded certain positions from me, which I do not necessarily hold to be true. If Einstein proposed such a philosophical question, the response would be equally closed-minded. I would be interested in understanding any and all scientific truth, even if it seemed objectionable to my religious belief. I have read nothing here contradicting my beliefs. Thank you for being a steadfast opinion in this conversation but open and fair.
Why can one not believe that Creation and Evolution coexist logically? You said yourself that "belief is a personal thing" The separation of religion from science is simply the scientific process at work. Please tell me how Einstein remained a theist and produced good science? It wasn't because he was a theist or an atheist. He used reason and even his reason was motivated by a desire for theistic truth! This motivation however didn't have to destroy the scientific process. I will admit that there were times that his theism tainted his work, but any belief in any theory alters perception. The tendencies we have taint our work no matter what our design. If you would not recognize that a religious truth is possible then you eliminate the possibility from the question. This undermines the scientific method.
I don't think you understood my question. The bottom line is that science and religion are different but not incompatible. Just because Science deals with only facts and religion deals with fact and myth or revelation does not make the two separate and incompatable. Many scientists create myth and live in a fantasy world just like some religionists. I agree in saying that "we don't know", there is no imperical evidence that can bring us to an understanding as we know it now. Creation as in the bible is a story that answers relational questions not technical matters. Those who think it does are not reading from history or context. They also make Judeo/Christianity into a farce.
"that has nothing to do with the naturalistic origins of life or the validity of evolutionary theory" exactly the point, You cannot say that evolution excludes creation There is no correlation to exclude it objectively. To say that evolution doesn't correlate to some peoples view of creation would be an accurate statement. - 7 earth days blah blah blah Creation however is a separate issue from evolution and the two theorys are not incompatible.
"Life came from organic chemicals, which didn't come from "nothing"; they were part of the Earth's early environment." Where did Earth's early environment come from? - don't stop there. If you limit the environment you limit the reality. Evolution works fine once there is something to evolve.