Interesting, do you know what they are trying to do to work out debate on the fossil records? I want to examine this more. Also, I'd like to read up on where we have been able to observe the macroevolution of insects and birds. I haven't seen these points before. I just got interested in evolution vs. id and have been trying to keep up my knowledge base. Thanks for the compliment; I don't get it too much when talking about things like this.
I haven't heard about Behe, I'll have to read up on how he refutes the fossil evidence. I'll investigate his articles to see what he offers up. Like I said to the last guy it can't be gradual because of the Cambrian Explosion, which turns the Darwin's tree of life upside-down. So if you use microevolution and fossil records you don't get macroevolution. It just doesn't add up. With the current data micro and macro evolution don't link together.
I respect that view. It does seem to make sense that if enough microevolution changes take place that maybe one species could morph into another. But the Cambrian Explosion nullifies that hypothesis. So we see how certain small changes could be favored and breeding makes the changes more permanent we don't see or have evidence of an animal turning into another through this process.
Forgive me for my ignorance; you are correct. I was caught up with the media hype. It is a theory and does show a clear beginning to the universe, which creationists should enjoy thoroughly. The only thing I can think of that the NASA scientists in question didn't like was that the big bang shows something from nothing. Then having theory tacked on would make it a more credible. Oh well, don't I look the fool. Thanks for the correcting slap on the back of the head.
Hahaha, you really think that id doesn't acknowledge microevolution. Now if the toads had turned into...let's say a walrus and iders' said macroevolution is still theory that would be something. Their legs got longer because of the environment favored it, no one debates that stuff like this has and does happen.
I'm sure it would have hurt some creationists' feelings; my point was the people it would offend would have been offended by just the words "Big Bang." Anyone who knows much about science knows it's a theory and anyone who doesn't know wouldn't pick up on the word anyway. The fact remains it's really a non-issue compared to the censoring of data, which is what was said to have happened to the climate data. Complaining the word "theory" was tacked onto a theory would be like me complaining that my manager used spell-checker on a document I sent him and fixed a spelling error. It's the same realm of censorship.
How would any of that hurt creationist's feelings? Anyone who cares already knows it's a theory, and any who doesn't won't be able to distinguish from proven science to theories anyway. He might have wanted to jab at the evolutionists but in the end it was just being politically correct by naming a theory a theory. The censoring of climate data was the only real issue there.
I was confused at what the cartoons message was, but I'm assuming that it's either saying if the government released into the open all of their dealings than it would be okay if we kept the international surveillance program, or that the government can keep their secrets as long as it gets rid of the surveillance. Freedom comes at a cost. Some people believe the current freedoms are enjoyed at too high of a cost and some don't. Both sides have valid arguments.
Very well formed answer. You are right that Christians should share and not force Christianity on anyone. There are those who have the "ends justify the means" attitude about spreading the word. I never liked pushy Christians and I wish more people would realize that it's not Biblical to try and force or coerce someone to faith. I think even if id doesn't get put into public schools I think at least a more comprehensive evolution study should be given. Not just present observed science that could prove evolution but also new findings that show it might not have. At least that way people coming out of school aren't coming from an incorrect assumption that evolution has been proven without a doubt and those who say otherwise are unintelligent.
Hahaha, tell us what you really think. I don't worry much; there are plenty of misguided people on both sides of the fence. It is hard, though, to ignore these people or reason with them. They are just there belittling anyone with an opposing position. I try to be polite and reason. I've actually posted a few times with my beliefs and haven't been flamed out of existence like I figured I would. I'm glad at least the people responding to my two cents are willing to dialogue. Not get into the immature mentality that your wrong and I'm right and stick their fingers in their ears.
Hahaha, I haven't heard the term flat-earthers. I do believe the whole Genesis Bible account, the big bang just happens to allow it and Genesis to be right. This is an interesting link for the flat-earthers reference http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/observatory/erato sthenes/. I still like the term used for those who refuse to believe in proven science though. On the age of the earth I'm still not sure between old and new. Yes the dating techs used could be wrong and science has shown that. But it doesn't mean the earth couldn't be really old. I'm just not sure and until a full proof dating tech is found no one can know. Unless you know of one that I haven't read about. That is very possible to. I'm definitely not an authority on the matter. But in this case there is still debate on both sides of the issue. And on both sides there are those that are open minded and those that are closed minded. We'll just have to wait out the science. I'm still reading different articles so that I can come to a informed opinion on the subject.
But as it was said before the law of gravity has been, pretty well, proven a fact. I think this guy just wanted the layman to know that science hasn't been able to show that this is what happened. I'm not saying that some features of the big bang aren't good and scientifically sound. I think this guy wanted the people reading their findings to know that. Maybe his motives were wrong, but it doesn't make what he did wrong. So what if theory is tacked onto the big bang it doesn't take away any of the data showing that this is what could have, or did, take place. I'm still confused why people are so upset that he did this. What people should be upset about is censoring the scientific data from the climate studies. That was wrong. If anything the theory debate is just bringing out the radicals on the other side of the religious fence. Logically it doesn't change the big bang in anyway unless you want people to believe it to be fact without any debate on the science behind it. Some things prove it and others don't. It still has data showing it might or might not be the start of it all. Like I said before it doesn't render the Bible incorrect because something from nothing hasn't been scientifically proven. Will it ever be proven, I don't think so, but it doesn't take way your faith in it. The Bible says God was the creator, or the cause, of the universe. As an American you can believe whatever you like. If I'm wrong and you don't believe that the big bang was an accident I apologize.
I suppose you are right about this. There are some very misguided Christians. But just for the record most Christians know that Christianity and science do not oppose each other and tend to compliment each other. The vocal minority that for some reason have found a way into power do mess it up for the rest of us. We can always hope for a better tomorrow.
How does every article that mentions science turn out anti-Christian posts? No Christian opposes gravity. There are certainly Christian and non-Christian people who disagree with the big bang. Some people just want theories to be designated as such. If the big bang is proven than there can be no debate, it fits in nicely with Biblical doctrine anyway. You can call the New Testament the "Theory of Jesus" all you want it won't offend me. We can probably put theory in front of all history where there are no currently living witnesses on earth. The only true problem with what that guy did was censor NASA's climate data. There's no grey there, it was wrong, unless the science was wrong. And even if it was at least let the data out for peer review. Than if the scientists screwed up something it can be debated in a public forum.
Doesn't mean they are truly Christian. You are right thought that some people will think that they are messing with a God sent plague, but that's nonsense. I hope this turns out to be a cure for aids and I'm a Christian. I'll be praying for a positive outcome on this.
You are right, the big bang works in perfectly with id. I suppose the comment is pretty silly. Did the comment come out before or after nasa saying they are being censored? It seems to me that if the comment came out afterwards, as silly as it is, it probably shouldn't have included creationism in anyway. He should have stuck with the scientific wording of theories aren't completely proven scientific fact instead of a tongue-lashing for forgetting the theory before big bang.
It matter little if theory is tacked onto the liturature. People are going to see nasa and believe whatever they say. Now if they are holding back info on scientific research that's not right. They should let them publish it and get reviewed by peers so that it's accuracy can be debated and not just hide it from the public. All scientific data should be reviewed by people in the area of the report and either debunked or strengthened. I guess to be politically correct they can put theory on unproven science but to most of the public it won't matter. I don't see why nasa is freakin out about that. The biggest thing on there minds should be the climate data not the theory of the big bang. Who cares if an editor inserted text for political correctness, it doesn't change the data.
It's weird, they have icewind dale heart of winter on the list of released games. I used to work at interplay and was a programmer on that title. I don't ever remember use using this stuff. I guess it could have been for a european release, they wouldn't even take a game unless it used macrovision. I wonder how many other games on their list are false. Anyone else work on any of these games and not use starforce?
Actually the graphics on the mouse, the pretty little cursor you see in pc games, usually has it's own thread. This is so that when the game slows down the user isn't frustrated with the mouse being really jerky. Windows is message based, so if your not processing the messages nothing happens. Carmack is pretty keen on keeping his engines single threaded because he doesn't believe the overhead is worth it. So i'm not sure what games you talking about unless they are old dos games or something based on id's tech. I can't think of a single modern engine that is single threaded. Also, which games have you worked on? Just curious because you talk as if you know what your talking about. Because if you handle interrupts directly than you probably worked on games 10+ years ago when everybody was making games for dos and you needed to.
Most games are not still single threaded. If you use direct play you automatically have multiple threads. Pc games use threads all the time. There a lot more uses on the pc than a console, eg. mouse, ai, streaming. The developers will figure out a way to use them efficiently. In fact I don't think I've worked on one single threaded game.
I'm curious if the people that flame here have actually read literature from both sides. I know there are atheists that believe Darwinism will eventually be proven but admit that the evidence is lacking. It just seems weird that the people posting here say anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is automatically an idiot. The emotion involved seem to come from a lack of studying both sides and coming to a reasonable conclusion either way. If you have studied both sides and come to the conclusion evolution is the more logical solution than so be it. It also applies to those who conclude that id is the more logical one. Please use small words in your flames; I am, as the consensus here believes, an imbecile;).
I never read about this, but that is pretty bad. It seems weird that the schools are in that much trouble when the education seemed so much better there. I apologize for my ignorance. I was just going by what I have seen having had my daughter in schools in both states. We have considered private school for her, and believe me as soon as we are financially able to we will do it. I do agree with you that public schools aren't nearly as good as private ones. I've been to both and know the lack of educational value of public schools. This was 10+ years ago I could only imagine when my daughter reaches high school how it will be. In Texas they seem to care more about the 3 r's of education where as in California she gets home like doing jumping jacks and baking cookies. I am exaggerating there are some of the basics of education there but a lot of homework seems to be more for broken homes. Like doing projects together as a family. This is fine but it seems more like the agenda is more for teaching the parents how to be a family unit then educating the children.
My bad, I thought it was the students that were banned as well from freedom of religion. And I did some reading and it looks like the courts held up that student run religious groups were okay. But I seem to remember that the schools wouldn't help at all. Which some people thought was a problem because other clubs like the chess club do get backing from the school. Also, I've lived in the south for a year and a half and just recently moved back to California. It's not as bad as we think. I thought it would be horrible. Texas rules. The people are nicer, housing is affordable and the cost of living is much less. There's also the education thing. It's 10 times better than here. My daughter is already getting dumber with the school systems here. There's going to be a lot of smart Texans and dumb Californians soon. It's amazing though, no state tax, only a slightly higher sales tax and higher property tax. The property tax doesn't matter much because the houses are valued less. Yet their government seems to be doing great, with a lot of money going to schools and public services. Oh well, shows how government corruption can hurt the people. The only thing California has on them is weather. I'm assuming your concern is over the supreme court nominee Judge Alito, I wouldn't be if I were you, at least he knows that the courts are supposed to interpret law and not make them. This should be good enough to evaluate evidence and make an informed decision. This stuff matters little in this day and age. It's been going down hill for 30 something years and no light at the end of the tunnel can be seen.
I could be wrong on this but I thought any expression of Christianity was banned from public schools. Including clothing that mentions Jesus and crosses. I could be totally wrong on this. I know there are always lawsuits going on against these expressions, and that means little except inconvenience and money to a lawyer to fight it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, do you know what they are trying to do to work out debate on the fossil records? I want to examine this more. Also, I'd like to read up on where we have been able to observe the macroevolution of insects and birds. I haven't seen these points before. I just got interested in evolution vs. id and have been trying to keep up my knowledge base. Thanks for the compliment; I don't get it too much when talking about things like this.
I haven't heard about Behe, I'll have to read up on how he refutes the fossil evidence. I'll investigate his articles to see what he offers up. Like I said to the last guy it can't be gradual because of the Cambrian Explosion, which turns the Darwin's tree of life upside-down. So if you use microevolution and fossil records you don't get macroevolution. It just doesn't add up. With the current data micro and macro evolution don't link together.
I respect that view. It does seem to make sense that if enough microevolution changes take place that maybe one species could morph into another. But the Cambrian Explosion nullifies that hypothesis. So we see how certain small changes could be favored and breeding makes the changes more permanent we don't see or have evidence of an animal turning into another through this process.
Forgive me for my ignorance; you are correct. I was caught up with the media hype. It is a theory and does show a clear beginning to the universe, which creationists should enjoy thoroughly. The only thing I can think of that the NASA scientists in question didn't like was that the big bang shows something from nothing. Then having theory tacked on would make it a more credible. Oh well, don't I look the fool. Thanks for the correcting slap on the back of the head.
Hahaha, you really think that id doesn't acknowledge microevolution. Now if the toads had turned into...let's say a walrus and iders' said macroevolution is still theory that would be something. Their legs got longer because of the environment favored it, no one debates that stuff like this has and does happen.
I'm sure it would have hurt some creationists' feelings; my point was the people it would offend would have been offended by just the words "Big Bang." Anyone who knows much about science knows it's a theory and anyone who doesn't know wouldn't pick up on the word anyway. The fact remains it's really a non-issue compared to the censoring of data, which is what was said to have happened to the climate data. Complaining the word "theory" was tacked onto a theory would be like me complaining that my manager used spell-checker on a document I sent him and fixed a spelling error. It's the same realm of censorship.
How would any of that hurt creationist's feelings? Anyone who cares already knows it's a theory, and any who doesn't won't be able to distinguish from proven science to theories anyway. He might have wanted to jab at the evolutionists but in the end it was just being politically correct by naming a theory a theory. The censoring of climate data was the only real issue there.
I was confused at what the cartoons message was, but I'm assuming that it's either saying if the government released into the open all of their dealings than it would be okay if we kept the international surveillance program, or that the government can keep their secrets as long as it gets rid of the surveillance. Freedom comes at a cost. Some people believe the current freedoms are enjoyed at too high of a cost and some don't. Both sides have valid arguments.
Very well formed answer. You are right that Christians should share and not force Christianity on anyone. There are those who have the "ends justify the means" attitude about spreading the word. I never liked pushy Christians and I wish more people would realize that it's not Biblical to try and force or coerce someone to faith. I think even if id doesn't get put into public schools I think at least a more comprehensive evolution study should be given. Not just present observed science that could prove evolution but also new findings that show it might not have. At least that way people coming out of school aren't coming from an incorrect assumption that evolution has been proven without a doubt and those who say otherwise are unintelligent.
Hahaha, tell us what you really think. I don't worry much; there are plenty of misguided people on both sides of the fence. It is hard, though, to ignore these people or reason with them. They are just there belittling anyone with an opposing position. I try to be polite and reason. I've actually posted a few times with my beliefs and haven't been flamed out of existence like I figured I would. I'm glad at least the people responding to my two cents are willing to dialogue. Not get into the immature mentality that your wrong and I'm right and stick their fingers in their ears.
Hahaha, I haven't heard the term flat-earthers. I do believe the whole Genesis Bible account, the big bang just happens to allow it and Genesis to be right. This is an interesting link for the flat-earthers reference http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/observatory/erato sthenes/. I still like the term used for those who refuse to believe in proven science though. On the age of the earth I'm still not sure between old and new. Yes the dating techs used could be wrong and science has shown that. But it doesn't mean the earth couldn't be really old. I'm just not sure and until a full proof dating tech is found no one can know. Unless you know of one that I haven't read about. That is very possible to. I'm definitely not an authority on the matter. But in this case there is still debate on both sides of the issue. And on both sides there are those that are open minded and those that are closed minded. We'll just have to wait out the science. I'm still reading different articles so that I can come to a informed opinion on the subject.
But as it was said before the law of gravity has been, pretty well, proven a fact. I think this guy just wanted the layman to know that science hasn't been able to show that this is what happened. I'm not saying that some features of the big bang aren't good and scientifically sound. I think this guy wanted the people reading their findings to know that. Maybe his motives were wrong, but it doesn't make what he did wrong. So what if theory is tacked onto the big bang it doesn't take away any of the data showing that this is what could have, or did, take place. I'm still confused why people are so upset that he did this. What people should be upset about is censoring the scientific data from the climate studies. That was wrong. If anything the theory debate is just bringing out the radicals on the other side of the religious fence. Logically it doesn't change the big bang in anyway unless you want people to believe it to be fact without any debate on the science behind it. Some things prove it and others don't. It still has data showing it might or might not be the start of it all. Like I said before it doesn't render the Bible incorrect because something from nothing hasn't been scientifically proven. Will it ever be proven, I don't think so, but it doesn't take way your faith in it. The Bible says God was the creator, or the cause, of the universe. As an American you can believe whatever you like. If I'm wrong and you don't believe that the big bang was an accident I apologize.
I suppose you are right about this. There are some very misguided Christians. But just for the record most Christians know that Christianity and science do not oppose each other and tend to compliment each other. The vocal minority that for some reason have found a way into power do mess it up for the rest of us. We can always hope for a better tomorrow.
How does every article that mentions science turn out anti-Christian posts? No Christian opposes gravity. There are certainly Christian and non-Christian people who disagree with the big bang. Some people just want theories to be designated as such. If the big bang is proven than there can be no debate, it fits in nicely with Biblical doctrine anyway. You can call the New Testament the "Theory of Jesus" all you want it won't offend me. We can probably put theory in front of all history where there are no currently living witnesses on earth. The only true problem with what that guy did was censor NASA's climate data. There's no grey there, it was wrong, unless the science was wrong. And even if it was at least let the data out for peer review. Than if the scientists screwed up something it can be debated in a public forum.
Doesn't mean they are truly Christian. You are right thought that some people will think that they are messing with a God sent plague, but that's nonsense. I hope this turns out to be a cure for aids and I'm a Christian. I'll be praying for a positive outcome on this.
You are right, the big bang works in perfectly with id. I suppose the comment is pretty silly. Did the comment come out before or after nasa saying they are being censored? It seems to me that if the comment came out afterwards, as silly as it is, it probably shouldn't have included creationism in anyway. He should have stuck with the scientific wording of theories aren't completely proven scientific fact instead of a tongue-lashing for forgetting the theory before big bang.
It matter little if theory is tacked onto the liturature. People are going to see nasa and believe whatever they say. Now if they are holding back info on scientific research that's not right. They should let them publish it and get reviewed by peers so that it's accuracy can be debated and not just hide it from the public. All scientific data should be reviewed by people in the area of the report and either debunked or strengthened. I guess to be politically correct they can put theory on unproven science but to most of the public it won't matter. I don't see why nasa is freakin out about that. The biggest thing on there minds should be the climate data not the theory of the big bang. Who cares if an editor inserted text for political correctness, it doesn't change the data.
Fire!
It's weird, they have icewind dale heart of winter on the list of released games. I used to work at interplay and was a programmer on that title. I don't ever remember use using this stuff. I guess it could have been for a european release, they wouldn't even take a game unless it used macrovision. I wonder how many other games on their list are false. Anyone else work on any of these games and not use starforce?
Actually the graphics on the mouse, the pretty little cursor you see in pc games, usually has it's own thread. This is so that when the game slows down the user isn't frustrated with the mouse being really jerky. Windows is message based, so if your not processing the messages nothing happens. Carmack is pretty keen on keeping his engines single threaded because he doesn't believe the overhead is worth it. So i'm not sure what games you talking about unless they are old dos games or something based on id's tech. I can't think of a single modern engine that is single threaded. Also, which games have you worked on? Just curious because you talk as if you know what your talking about. Because if you handle interrupts directly than you probably worked on games 10+ years ago when everybody was making games for dos and you needed to.
Most games are not still single threaded. If you use direct play you automatically have multiple threads. Pc games use threads all the time. There a lot more uses on the pc than a console, eg. mouse, ai, streaming. The developers will figure out a way to use them efficiently. In fact I don't think I've worked on one single threaded game.
I'm curious if the people that flame here have actually read literature from both sides. I know there are atheists that believe Darwinism will eventually be proven but admit that the evidence is lacking. It just seems weird that the people posting here say anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is automatically an idiot. The emotion involved seem to come from a lack of studying both sides and coming to a reasonable conclusion either way. If you have studied both sides and come to the conclusion evolution is the more logical solution than so be it. It also applies to those who conclude that id is the more logical one. Please use small words in your flames; I am, as the consensus here believes, an imbecile;).
I never read about this, but that is pretty bad. It seems weird that the schools are in that much trouble when the education seemed so much better there. I apologize for my ignorance. I was just going by what I have seen having had my daughter in schools in both states. We have considered private school for her, and believe me as soon as we are financially able to we will do it. I do agree with you that public schools aren't nearly as good as private ones. I've been to both and know the lack of educational value of public schools. This was 10+ years ago I could only imagine when my daughter reaches high school how it will be. In Texas they seem to care more about the 3 r's of education where as in California she gets home like doing jumping jacks and baking cookies. I am exaggerating there are some of the basics of education there but a lot of homework seems to be more for broken homes. Like doing projects together as a family. This is fine but it seems more like the agenda is more for teaching the parents how to be a family unit then educating the children.
My bad, I thought it was the students that were banned as well from freedom of religion. And I did some reading and it looks like the courts held up that student run religious groups were okay. But I seem to remember that the schools wouldn't help at all. Which some people thought was a problem because other clubs like the chess club do get backing from the school. Also, I've lived in the south for a year and a half and just recently moved back to California. It's not as bad as we think. I thought it would be horrible. Texas rules. The people are nicer, housing is affordable and the cost of living is much less. There's also the education thing. It's 10 times better than here. My daughter is already getting dumber with the school systems here. There's going to be a lot of smart Texans and dumb Californians soon. It's amazing though, no state tax, only a slightly higher sales tax and higher property tax. The property tax doesn't matter much because the houses are valued less. Yet their government seems to be doing great, with a lot of money going to schools and public services. Oh well, shows how government corruption can hurt the people. The only thing California has on them is weather. I'm assuming your concern is over the supreme court nominee Judge Alito, I wouldn't be if I were you, at least he knows that the courts are supposed to interpret law and not make them. This should be good enough to evaluate evidence and make an informed decision. This stuff matters little in this day and age. It's been going down hill for 30 something years and no light at the end of the tunnel can be seen.
I could be wrong on this but I thought any expression of Christianity was banned from public schools. Including clothing that mentions Jesus and crosses. I could be totally wrong on this. I know there are always lawsuits going on against these expressions, and that means little except inconvenience and money to a lawyer to fight it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.