This would only work if the batteries had an effectively infinite recharging life or were very cheap. A new car would have a new, good battery and then you'd swap it at a refueling station for an old standardized battery?
A hybrid car with a 100 mile battery would probably be viable right now for many people's commuter car. A modified Toyota Prius will do this right now. The mod adds a much bigger battery and a special battery charger that can be plugged in at home. For long trips the gas engine re-charges the battery and powers the car.
So you decide to murder your neighbor, rape his wife and then burn his house down? Should your other neighbors not do something, lest you decide to repeat your actions on them?
We have horses and they too have their societal rules of behavior. In horses and other animals these patterns are determined mostly by instinct, programmed in by their maker.
We humans have historically had many ways of making rules for ourselves, but there must be and always have been rules, express and implied. There have been various ways these rules have been made and enforced. Anarchy, where everybody tries to make their own laws has never worked and never will.
Copyright, DRM, DMCA and other IP "property" rules are modern constructs, necessitated by modern technologies. Before Gutenberg and printing, passing knowledge and skills to succeeding generations or from one person to another, involved considerable amounts of time. Music among other arts flourished because it was personal to the artist. By the time our constitution was written, copying of written art was very much easier and widely available. The distance between artist and audience was greatly increased and easy copying allowed for a much greater audience. Because of the easy of copying, copyright rules are mandated in the constitution and Congress is directed to supply the details of these rules.
As technology improved, these laws were extended and updated. This process is still going on and DMCA mandating DRM are only part of this continuing process of adapting our rules of living to new technologies. Why do most/.ers get so upset when they don't like the rules as applied our particular technological interests? The fact that the DMCA and copyright still exist shows that most people are not directly involved to the point that they care about such laws. That is the only reason why **AA was able to buy such a law. If there ever comes a time when the majority DO care, that law will bite the dust faster than a rodeo rider.
Meanwhile, there is plenty of good art not encumbered by DRM. Buy and enjoy that and use it in a fair way to support the ones who created it. Anyone who is creative ought to be able to benefit from their creativity.
....Maybe a good idea to create a new account every time you buy something.....
The ITMS account is associated with a credit card, so that would have to be transferred to the new account also each time. I don't know if one credit card can be used for several accounts. maybe someone else here on/. can tell you that.
..........any event where ownership needs to be transfered.........
Possession is nine tenths of the law. If you have it, someone else has to prove it is theirs before it can be taken away from you.
In the case of DRM itunes files, your password to the account is your key. If you no longer want your music, you can give/sell your key and someone else can have your music.
.....Why is it unethical to break an unethical law when I am NOT willing to face the consequences?.......
What makes a law ethical or unethical? Who decides this. In a democratic society we elect legislators who, despite purchases of politicians by corporations still listen to the voters. DRM is a non-issue with most voters and so such laws can be bought. If DRM and DMCA ever DO become big issues with Joe Consumer-voter, these laws will change quickly to remove these issues.
ITunes content has DRM with it, but I'd bet the majority of non/. consumers don't even know that it is there. They don't know that DRM is the reason you need an iPod of you want to play music bought from Itunes on a portable music player. They know that music bought in ITMS is made for the iPod in the same way that they know a fender made for their Ford won't fit their Toyota.
Only if and when DRM has a real impact on the "silent majority" will it and DMCA ever go away. Meanwhile, do what you like, "just don't get caught". After all copying something for your own use isn't theft or murder.
.....The human eye can't register single photons.......
We live very close to the Oregon Caves. Anyone who goes in there and spends slightly less that 2 hours in total darkness there WILL be able to register a single photon of light in the yellow-green range. As for snow and bright light, only PROLONGED exposure does damage to the eyes.
Where other than a mind and its processes of thought does information arise in our everyday life? Every human creation first arises as thoughts in the mind of one or more people. Why is it then so unreasonable and far fetched to postulate that natural information, such as DNA and the laws of physics were not also first formulated in a superior mind? Exploring the mysteries of DNA and the laws of physics is good. Will admitting and giving credit to the source of these diminish their usefulness or change them in any way? Giving credit to Mozart, the Beatles or Shakespeare diminish our enjoyment of their creativity?
Let the premise be: God made (put your favorite object here), let's investigate how He did this and derive use and satisfaction from our discoveries of His expertise.
....They've been using genetic algorithms to create code for years....
So algorithms are not information? Is code itself nothing more than the formalization of one or more algorithms? Who thought up the algorithms embodied them in the genetic codes?
God would not be threatened if we as His creatures could someday *build* life. Your questions reminds me of a joke:
One day some scientists proudly came before God, boasting to have created life. He said to them: "I'm interested. Show me the procedure how you did this!" The head scientists gathered up some dirt and proceeded to put it into the reactor that was supposed to produce life. "Wait a minute" God said. "You make your own dirt first!"
If we did have success in the life creating business, it would show that it takes a great deal of thought, planning and effort to do so. The scientists that did this would be presumed to be intelligent, thus proving Intelligence is needed in order to create life. Also, the question of whether life is more than physical would have to be answered.
.........As if evolution was invented to make it possible for people to avoid responsibilities. No, that's not the case.........
Unfortunately it is true that evolution is used as the basis for escaping our responsibility to a Creator. All science would work and educate us just the same if it were approached as it was in the days of Newton, Galileo, Pascal and others of that time.
The premise was and still could be: "We believe God made (put object of study here), so now lets try to figure out how it works, see if we can apply its principles elsewhere and use these for our good." Evolutionary science today is like someone who reads a gripping story or beautiful poem and then refuses to acknowledge the skill and creativity of the author.
The many natural systems studied by science shows that these are very clever and well thought out. The problem is that as soon as the idea of God behind nature is accepted, it becomes clear that such a God may have some purposes and requirements of His creatures. This suspicion that there is a God of some sort is deeply planted in the collective human psyche. We are an incurably religious race. NO culture has ever been found that did not practice a religion of some kind.
In this very thread I mentioned that the God of the Bible is just and will give everyone what they deserve, perfectly. No one will appeal the verdict of the highest court of the universe, even if such an appeal were possible. Everyone will know that God did not give them a bad verdict, as it will be based on this life and our behavior. An angry response about a God threatening with hell and punishment ensued. Now why would an innocent person, one who KNEW they ware innocent make such a response to the promise of perfect justice?
.......Which of the following four points do you think is wrong?.......
None of them are. They are all true. The problem is that evolutionists try to explain the origin and operation of extremely complex living systems apart from the activity of thought arising in a mind. The codes stored in the DNA are complex digital programs that determine the functioning of living organisms. DNA may be compared to the disk drive containing all the programs and data of your computer. Most people will readily credit one or more programmers as the originators of these binary patterns. Why is it then that evolutionists are UNWILLING to acknowledge the programmer of the programming stored in the DNA?
The patterns and programs will not change. The challenge and utility of sequencing the human genomes would not be diminished if all scientists acknowledged and maybe even stood in awe of the programmer who figured all that out long ago. It is the unwillingness of modern scientists who BELIEVE in evolution, and won't acknowledge the author and coder, that I have strong objection to, not evolution per se. Acknowledging and giving credit to William Shakespeare or Mozart for their creativity, in no way diminishes their works.
....I ask you: who designed the designer that you postulate? We can only assume that it must have been a designer of similar or higher complexity....
The God that is and has revealed Himself in the Bible as transcendent. He is eternally self existent and everything is ultimately first conceived in His mind. There are three possibilities:
1. The Universe itself is eternal, has always existed. This has been shown to be false by observation and experiment.
2. The Universe created itself. This logically absurd.
3. There is an existence outside of the universe from whom it came to be.
The last item is most in line with what we observe scientifically and in everyday human creativity. All human creations first come to someone's mind and then are made real by one or more people's efforts.
All human laws originate in the mind of legislators or someone connected with them. The laws of physics originated in the mind of God. Science can discover and work with the laws of physics, but neither did humans make these laws nor are we able to amend or change them in the slightest. God just is, and so are His laws.
Evolution is the human attempt to escape accountability to God by trying explain the facts of science without reference to Him.
.............If the bible is the only evidence you have that points to the existence of a creator.........
The DNA contains large amounts of information. It is a program, similar to a computer program. All codes and programs are information and as such are the products of one or more minds. Evolution is an attempt to explain the origins and workings of life without the activity of the supreme mind of God. The laws of physics, just as human laws, are the product of mind. All laws require a lawgiver, whether human or 'natural'.
Just as one can infer some characteristics of an engineer, architect, composer or other creative person, so it is also possible to tell some of the characteristics of the creator from His creation.
To really know a creative person they have to want to and take steps to reveal themselves to you. God has done this by giving us the Bible. He wants us to know Him intimately, more than nature reveals about Him.
......Funny, I thought it was just a consquence of the way sodium and chlorine atoms stack..................Funny, I thought it was just a consquence of the way sodium and chlorine atoms stack......
And who made the laws and rules which the atoms follow to make then stack in this particular way? Who decided that protons should be exactly 1836 times more massive that electrons? If this were any different, either up or down by a small amount, there would be no planets, no life etc. How come gravity is the weakest of known forces, yet holds the heavenly bodies in their orbits. Who figured out the Earth's exact mass, composition and position in relation to the sun so life could exist here.
Where did the immense amount of information stored in your DNA originate? Information cannot arise from anywhere other than a mind. We experience this every day. Your computer, car and other man made object first was conceived in one or more human minds.
The human eye cannot be directly compared to a camera. It is the whole eye-brain system that must be considered. Even so, no human has yet constructed any kind of light sensor that can register a single photon, yet not be instantly destroyed by the influx of photons from a snowlit winter scene. The dynamic range of the eye as a light sensor is unsurpassed. Your mention of the tissue layers and other nonsense shows that you know nothing at all of the function and working of the eye. If you did, you'd not be spouting the misinformation. The nerve layers are indeed in front, but they are very tiny, almost transparent, and have the same refractive index as the surrounding fluid. The back layer has the rich blood supply that feeds and powers the rod and cone cells. Blood cells are opaque and would block and scatter the light if the eye were designed differently.
The origin of the designer is a different matter and cannot be ascertained by science. But then it is not always possible to trace the designer of human artifacts either. We don't know exactly who built Stonehenge but we know there was a designer and it did not "evolve" by some impersonal process.
...........some unknown reason did a wonderful job a making our dna 99% the same as chimps........
You as a denizen on/. should or could know that it is often the case that the same code portions are reapplied in other applications.
Similarity in designs doesn't mean descent, but simply a use of what works in different ways. Cars have four wheels, but that doesn't mean one descended from another. Why are you denying the designer of the natural world the same methods we employ in our designs?
Genetic codes are indeed facts, but just as human codes need an interpreter, so do genetic codes. Having a computer code or cipher alone, tells us nothing about who the programmer was.
All codes are information. There is NO other source of information outside of a mind. If there is a program, there HAS to be a programmer in whose mind the program was first conceived. Evolution without the input of a mind is bogus wishing in order of humans to escape the responsibility to God everyone KNOWS deep down inside they have. The very existence of religion proves this.
You can believe or not. I happen to believe that the Bible is true. You happen to believe it is fiction. After each of us draws our last breath, belief will no longer be needed. We will both KNOW who was right. I stake my eternal future on the truth of the grace of God offered through Jesus. What do you stake your eternal destiny on? You certainly WILL meet your maker as a judge. You WILL get what you deserve. Are you glad or afraid of the perfect justice that will be yours?
.....I don't think you'll find one scientist that claims that the eye was thrown together whole by some random mutation......
Formulate it any way you like, but the bottom line in evolution is always an impersonal conjectured process that EXCLUDES the idea of the involvement of a mind. You nor anybody else I know of would ever describe a digital camera or an automobile as having originated by any processes that did NOT involve an intelligent human designer and builder. Yet the assembly of an optical system far superior to anything yet even imagined by man, let alone actually construct such, is ascribed to ANYTHING OTHER than originating in an intelligent mind. Such a dichotomy of logic is ridiculous and highly unworthy of any thinking human being.
.....It's happened over 40 times, starting from a light sensitive patch, and giving different types of eyes......
Really now? Can you point me to the experiments that were done these 40 times to verify this. After all true real science is based on EXPERIMENTAL and observational hard data. Has anyone observed or experimentally duplicated the processes by which a light sensitive patch becomes an instrument better by far that the best efforts of INTELLIGENT human camera designers? Don't tell me about millions of years of nebulous impersonal processes that don't involve the activity of a mind.
......It's only purpose is to explain the natural phenomenon of evolution of organisms over life's history on Earth..............without the need for a mind or intelligence but only some impersonal random process called natural selection or survival of the fittest. God is not needed nor wanted because if there is an acknowledgment of God, then the next question of our accountability to Him arises. Evolution neatly sidesteps the uncomfortable possibility of having to answer to Him how we have lived our lives.
......I was not aware that evolution made any predictions about the number of deities in existance....
It doesn't! Evolution is the attempt to explain how this world came to be and tries interpret the facts of science without God. Nobody I know of denies that an artifact of man, such as an airplane or car came into existence by any means other than the activity of mind. Yet all evolutionists deny that the DESIGNER and builder of such things is also the product of a supreme mind, a product of intelligent design. Everything comes from the mind of God.
....It is not out of the realm of possibility that the judgement also includes the eulogy by the people at the time of death.....
No, it is how you lived your life in the light of God's perfection that He uses as criteria for judgment.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev20:12)
The alternative to justice is to accept God's mercy offered in Jesus.
.....I would rather go there with dignity than worship a childish entity who gives infinite tortuous punishment.....
Nowhere did I mention anything about hell or punishment, but simply perfect justice. If you believe that your life conduct justly has earned you punishment, than that's what you'll get from the God os justice. Even imperfect human justice tries mostly to avoid punishing those who are innocent.
.....the reality is that the intent of the bible isn't always clear......
The Bible contains histories and illustrations to clarify its intent. It is the only book which was ever written, the intent of which is to help its readers to truly love its author. It tells that the author is the creator of all that exists and that He wants us humans to have a personal love relationship with Himself. However people have turned their backs on Him because the once perfect relationship the first humans had with a perfect and good God was broken by their and all of our choice not to love Him. Love is manifest by trust and faith in the person loved.
The Bible, God's love letter to humanity, further tells us that God was and is not happy with this estrangement and it need not be a permanent situation. He became human, entered our time-space limited world and provided a way out. His human name is Jesus. God decreed that by simple faith and trust in this ONE God-man, the broken relationship can be restored for any person. He proved this to be true, by resurrecting Jesus from death. That in essence is the intent of the Bible and is quite clear.
......A literal read of the bible and a belief in science are impossible to reconcile.....
Only the interpretations of the facts of science are in conflict with the Bible. Evolution is one interpretation and this interpretation does indeed conflict with the Bible. The reason for this is simply that the foundation and purpose of evolution is to try to explain the facts and laws of science by the denial of God. It is a futile, intellectual sounding, yet desperate attempt replace Him and our accountability toward Him with chance or other impersonal mechanisms. You WILL DIE and then face Him as your judge. Then you will get what you DESERVE, as will every other human. Right now however you may accept His grace through FAITH in Jesus and NOT get what you deserve when you have to appear in the supreme court of the Universe. Those who refuse grace and mercy will nevertheless receive perfect justice.
..... It's popular with people who don't want to believe they will have to answer to a high power than themselves.....
How very true! Evolution gives no hope nor dread of what happens after death. All humans will find out after their last heartbeat, whether their belief was correct. There is one verse in the Bible, just one sentence.
"It is appointed unto man to die once, but after that comes the judgment" (Hebrews 9:26)
Nobody disputes the first part of this ONE sentence, but everyone who believes in evolution fervently denies the second part. News for all evolution believers: The second part is just as true and the first part. There is a coming judgment! Everyone WILL appear before God. There are no exception nor choice in this.
However today, while you are still breathing God offers grace and forgiveness in Jesus for those who BELIEVE. For the others, they will get what they deserve from a perfectly just and righteous God.
Much of what we do is based on faith. When you get on an airplane, you take on faith that the DESIGNERS and builders thereof did their math correctly and made a reasonably safe airplane. When you take an elevator, you have faith that the cables will carry the load. You don't KNOW that they will, but have faith that the builders were reasonable and did the right thing. When you get in your car, you have faith that others, whom you have never met, will stop for the red light etc.
Why then is it not also reasonable that there is a designer that made your eyes, a device more complex and versatile than the most advanced camera? Why is it termed to be unreasonable that someone came up with all the complex, interacting laws and relationships we observe, called the laws of physics. These have been observed to apply to the most distant objects and places equally. If evolution were true and there is not just one designer, why should a chance process not involving ONE mind make these rules the same in the entire universe?
To me it is much more unreasonable to attribute human creations to design and the more complex "natural" creation to chance or other processes not involving the activity of a mind. All design implies a designer, natural or manmade.
Slashdot Mirror
......If the batteries were standardised.....
This would only work if the batteries had an effectively infinite recharging life or were very cheap. A new car would have a new, good battery and then you'd swap it at a refueling station for an old standardized battery?
A hybrid car with a 100 mile battery would probably be viable right now for many people's commuter car. A modified Toyota Prius will do this right now. The mod adds a much bigger battery and a special battery charger that can be plugged in at home. For long trips the gas engine re-charges the battery and powers the car.
......I do. Next question?.......
/.ers get so upset when they don't like the rules as applied our particular technological interests? The fact that the DMCA and copyright still exist shows that most people are not directly involved to the point that they care about such laws. That is the only reason why **AA was able to buy such a law. If there ever comes a time when the majority DO care, that law will bite the dust faster than a rodeo rider.
So you decide to murder your neighbor, rape his wife and then burn his house down? Should your other neighbors not do something, lest you decide to repeat your actions on them?
We have horses and they too have their societal rules of behavior. In horses and other animals these patterns are determined mostly by instinct, programmed in by their maker.
We humans have historically had many ways of making rules for ourselves, but there must be and always have been rules, express and implied. There have been various ways these rules have been made and enforced. Anarchy, where everybody tries to make their own laws has never worked and never will.
Copyright, DRM, DMCA and other IP "property" rules are modern constructs, necessitated by modern technologies. Before Gutenberg and printing, passing knowledge and skills to succeeding generations or from one person to another, involved considerable amounts of time. Music among other arts flourished because it was personal to the artist. By the time our constitution was written, copying of written art was very much easier and widely available. The distance between artist and audience was greatly increased and easy copying allowed for a much greater audience. Because of the easy of copying, copyright rules are mandated in the constitution and Congress is directed to supply the details of these rules.
As technology improved, these laws were extended and updated. This process is still going on and DMCA mandating DRM are only part of this continuing process of adapting our rules of living to new technologies. Why do most
Meanwhile, there is plenty of good art not encumbered by DRM. Buy and enjoy that and use it in a fair way to support the ones who created it. Anyone who is creative ought to be able to benefit from their creativity.
....Maybe a good idea to create a new account every time you buy something.....
/. can tell you that.
The ITMS account is associated with a credit card, so that would have to be transferred to the new account also each time. I don't know if one credit card can be used for several accounts. maybe someone else here on
..........any event where ownership needs to be transfered.........
Possession is nine tenths of the law. If you have it, someone else has to prove it is theirs before it can be taken away from you.
In the case of DRM itunes files, your password to the account is your key. If you no longer want your music, you can give/sell your key and someone else can have your music.
.....Why is it unethical to break an unethical law when I am NOT willing to face the consequences?.......
What makes a law ethical or unethical? Who decides this. In a democratic society we elect legislators who, despite purchases of politicians by corporations still listen to the voters. DRM is a non-issue with most voters and so such laws can be bought. If DRM and DMCA ever DO become big issues with Joe Consumer-voter, these laws will change quickly to remove these issues.
ITunes content has DRM with it, but I'd bet the majority of non/. consumers don't even know that it is there. They don't know that DRM is the reason you need an iPod of you want to play music bought from Itunes on a portable music player. They know that music bought in ITMS is made for the iPod in the same way that they know a fender made for their Ford won't fit their Toyota.
Only if and when DRM has a real impact on the "silent majority" will it and DMCA ever go away. Meanwhile, do what you like, "just don't get caught". After all copying something for your own use isn't theft or murder.
.....The human eye can't register single photons.......
We live very close to the Oregon Caves. Anyone who goes in there and spends slightly less that 2 hours in total darkness there WILL be able to register a single photon of light in the yellow-green range. As for snow and bright light, only PROLONGED exposure does damage to the eyes.
Where other than a mind and its processes of thought does information arise in our everyday life? Every human creation first arises as thoughts in the mind of one or more people. Why is it then so unreasonable and far fetched to postulate that natural information, such as DNA and the laws of physics were not also first formulated in a superior mind? Exploring the mysteries of DNA and the laws of physics is good. Will admitting and giving credit to the source of these diminish their usefulness or change them in any way? Giving credit to Mozart, the Beatles or Shakespeare diminish our enjoyment of their creativity?
Let the premise be: God made (put your favorite object here), let's investigate how He did this and derive use and satisfaction from our discoveries of His expertise.
....They've been using genetic algorithms to create code for years....
So algorithms are not information? Is code itself nothing more than the formalization of one or more algorithms? Who thought up the algorithms embodied them in the genetic codes?
God would not be threatened if we as His creatures could someday *build* life. Your questions reminds me of a joke:
One day some scientists proudly came before God, boasting to have created life. He said to them: "I'm interested. Show me the procedure how you did this!" The head scientists gathered up some dirt and proceeded to put it into the reactor that was supposed to produce life. "Wait a minute" God said. "You make your own dirt first!"
If we did have success in the life creating business, it would show that it takes a great deal of thought, planning and effort to do so. The scientists that did this would be presumed to be intelligent, thus proving Intelligence is needed in order to create life. Also, the question of whether life is more than physical would have to be answered.
.........As if evolution was invented to make it possible for people to avoid responsibilities. No, that's not the case. ........
Unfortunately it is true that evolution is used as the basis for escaping our responsibility to a Creator. All science would work and educate us just the same if it were approached as it was in the days of Newton, Galileo, Pascal and others of that time.
The premise was and still could be: "We believe God made (put object of study here), so now lets try to figure out how it works, see if we can apply its principles elsewhere and use these for our good." Evolutionary science today is like someone who reads a gripping story or beautiful poem and then refuses to acknowledge the skill and creativity of the author.
The many natural systems studied by science shows that these are very clever and well thought out. The problem is that as soon as the idea of God behind nature is accepted, it becomes clear that such a God may have some purposes and requirements of His creatures. This suspicion that there is a God of some sort is deeply planted in the collective human psyche. We are an incurably religious race. NO culture has ever been found that did not practice a religion of some kind.
In this very thread I mentioned that the God of the Bible is just and will give everyone what they deserve, perfectly. No one will appeal the verdict of the highest court of the universe, even if such an appeal were possible. Everyone will know that God did not give them a bad verdict, as it will be based on this life and our behavior. An angry response about a God threatening with hell and punishment ensued. Now why would an innocent person, one who KNEW they ware innocent make such a response to the promise of perfect justice?
.......Which of the following four points do you think is wrong?.......
None of them are. They are all true. The problem is that evolutionists try to explain the origin and operation of extremely complex living systems apart from the activity of thought arising in a mind. The codes stored in the DNA are complex digital programs that determine the functioning of living organisms. DNA may be compared to the disk drive containing all the programs and data of your computer. Most people will readily credit one or more programmers as the originators of these binary patterns. Why is it then that evolutionists are UNWILLING to acknowledge the programmer of the programming stored in the DNA?
The patterns and programs will not change. The challenge and utility of sequencing the human genomes would not be diminished if all scientists acknowledged and maybe even stood in awe of the programmer who figured all that out long ago. It is the unwillingness of modern scientists who BELIEVE in evolution, and won't acknowledge the author and coder, that I have strong objection to, not evolution per se. Acknowledging and giving credit to William Shakespeare or Mozart for their creativity, in no way diminishes their works.
....I ask you: who designed the designer that you postulate? We can only assume that it must have been a designer of similar or higher complexity....
The God that is and has revealed Himself in the Bible as transcendent. He is eternally self existent and everything is ultimately first conceived in His mind.
There are three possibilities:
1. The Universe itself is eternal, has always existed. This has been shown to be false by observation and experiment.
2. The Universe created itself. This logically absurd.
3. There is an existence outside of the universe from whom it came to be.
The last item is most in line with what we observe scientifically and in everyday human creativity. All human creations first come to someone's mind and then are made real by one or more people's efforts.
All human laws originate in the mind of legislators or someone connected with them. The laws of physics originated in the mind of God. Science can discover and work with the laws of physics, but neither did humans make these laws nor are we able to amend or change them in the slightest. God just is, and so are His laws.
Evolution is the human attempt to escape accountability to God by trying explain the facts of science without reference to Him.
.............If the bible is the only evidence you have that points to the existence of a creator.........
The DNA contains large amounts of information. It is a program, similar to a computer program. All codes and programs are information and as such are the products of one or more minds. Evolution is an attempt to explain the origins and workings of life without the activity of the supreme mind of God. The laws of physics, just as human laws, are the product of mind. All laws require a lawgiver, whether human or 'natural'.
Just as one can infer some characteristics of an engineer, architect, composer or other creative person, so it is also possible to tell some of the characteristics of the creator from His creation.
To really know a creative person they have to want to and take steps to reveal themselves to you. God has done this by giving us the Bible. He wants us to know Him intimately, more than nature reveals about Him.
......Funny, I thought it was just a consquence of the way sodium and chlorine atoms stack...... ............Funny, I thought it was just a consquence of the way sodium and chlorine atoms stack......
And who made the laws and rules which the atoms follow to make then stack in this particular way? Who decided that protons should be exactly 1836 times more massive that electrons? If this were any different, either up or down by a small amount, there would be no planets, no life etc. How come gravity is the weakest of known forces, yet holds the heavenly bodies in their orbits. Who figured out the Earth's exact mass, composition and position in relation to the sun so life could exist here.
Where did the immense amount of information stored in your DNA originate? Information cannot arise from anywhere other than a mind. We experience this every day. Your computer, car and other man made object first was conceived in one or more human minds.
The human eye cannot be directly compared to a camera. It is the whole eye-brain system that must be considered. Even so, no human has yet constructed any kind of light sensor that can register a single photon, yet not be instantly destroyed by the influx of photons from a snowlit winter scene. The dynamic range of the eye as a light sensor is unsurpassed. Your mention of the tissue layers and other nonsense shows that you know nothing at all of the function and working of the eye. If you did, you'd not be spouting the misinformation. The nerve layers are indeed in front, but they are very tiny, almost transparent, and have the same refractive index as the surrounding fluid. The back layer has the rich blood supply that feeds and powers the rod and cone cells. Blood cells are opaque and would block and scatter the light if the eye were designed differently.
The origin of the designer is a different matter and cannot be ascertained by science. But then it is not always possible to trace the designer of human artifacts either. We don't know exactly who built Stonehenge but we know there was a designer and it did not "evolve" by some impersonal process.
...........some unknown reason did a wonderful job a making our dna 99% the same as chimps ........
/. should or could know that it is often the case that the same code portions are reapplied in other applications.
You as a denizen on
Similarity in designs doesn't mean descent, but simply a use of what works in different ways. Cars have four wheels, but that doesn't mean one descended from another. Why are you denying the designer of the natural world the same methods we employ in our designs?
Genetic codes are indeed facts, but just as human codes need an interpreter, so do genetic codes. Having a computer code or cipher alone, tells us nothing about who the programmer was.
All codes are information. There is NO other source of information outside of a mind. If there is a program, there HAS to be a programmer in whose mind the program was first conceived. Evolution without the input of a mind is bogus wishing in order of humans to escape the responsibility to God everyone KNOWS deep down inside they have. The very existence of religion proves this.
...........And that is true exactly why?.....
You can believe or not. I happen to believe that the Bible is true. You happen to believe it is fiction. After each of us draws our last breath, belief will no longer be needed. We will both KNOW who was right. I stake my eternal future on the truth of the grace of God offered through Jesus. What do you stake your eternal destiny on? You certainly WILL meet your maker as a judge. You WILL get what you deserve. Are you glad or afraid of the perfect justice that will be yours?
.....I don't think you'll find one scientist that claims that the eye was thrown together whole by some random mutation......
Formulate it any way you like, but the bottom line in evolution is always an impersonal conjectured process that EXCLUDES the idea of the involvement of a mind. You nor anybody else I know of would ever describe a digital camera or an automobile as having originated by any processes that did NOT involve an intelligent human designer and builder. Yet the assembly of an optical system far superior to anything yet even imagined by man, let alone actually construct such, is ascribed to ANYTHING OTHER than originating in an intelligent mind. Such a dichotomy of logic is ridiculous and highly unworthy of any thinking human being.
.....It's happened over 40 times, starting from a light sensitive patch, and giving different types of eyes......
Really now? Can you point me to the experiments that were done these 40 times to verify this. After all true real science is based on EXPERIMENTAL and observational hard data. Has anyone observed or experimentally duplicated the processes by which a light sensitive patch becomes an instrument better by far that the best efforts of INTELLIGENT human camera designers? Don't tell me about millions of years of nebulous impersonal processes that don't involve the activity of a mind.
......Religion is undermined because it has no logical foundations......
Not all questions of life can be addressed by logic. Is it logical to love someone? How about hatred without cause?
Science is great, but cannot answer the most searching and deepest questions that humans have asked.
Where do I come from?
Why am I here?
Where am I going after I die?
Science speculates here, but only faith can provide answers. Only by faith can we accept or reject the answers given by the various religions.
......It's only purpose is to explain the natural phenomenon of evolution of organisms over life's history on Earth........ ......without the need for a mind or intelligence but only some impersonal random process called natural selection or survival of the fittest. God is not needed nor wanted because if there is an acknowledgment of God, then the next question of our accountability to Him arises. Evolution neatly sidesteps the uncomfortable possibility of having to answer to Him how we have lived our lives.
......I was not aware that evolution made any predictions about the number of deities in existance....
It doesn't! Evolution is the attempt to explain how this world came to be and tries interpret the facts of science without God. Nobody I know of denies that an artifact of man, such as an airplane or car came into existence by any means other than the activity of mind. Yet all evolutionists deny that the DESIGNER and builder of such things is also the product of a supreme mind, a product of intelligent design. Everything comes from the mind of God.
....It is not out of the realm of possibility that the judgement also includes the eulogy by the people at the time of death.....
No, it is how you lived your life in the light of God's perfection that He uses as criteria for judgment.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev20:12)
The alternative to justice is to accept God's mercy offered in Jesus.
.....I would rather go there with dignity than worship a childish entity who gives infinite tortuous punishment .....
Nowhere did I mention anything about hell or punishment, but simply perfect justice. If you believe that your life conduct justly has earned you punishment, than that's what you'll get from the God os justice. Even imperfect human justice tries mostly to avoid punishing those who are innocent.
.....the reality is that the intent of the bible isn't always clear......
The Bible contains histories and illustrations to clarify its intent. It is the only book which was ever written, the intent of which is to help its readers to truly love its author. It tells that the author is the creator of all that exists and that He wants us humans to have a personal love relationship with Himself. However people have turned their backs on Him because the once perfect relationship the first humans had with a perfect and good God was broken by their and all of our choice not to love Him. Love is manifest by trust and faith in the person loved.
The Bible, God's love letter to humanity, further tells us that God was and is not happy with this estrangement and it need not be a permanent situation. He became human, entered our time-space limited world and provided a way out. His human name is Jesus. God decreed that by simple faith and trust in this ONE God-man, the broken relationship can be restored for any person. He proved this to be true, by resurrecting Jesus from death. That in essence is the intent of the Bible and is quite clear.
Only the interpretations of the facts of science are in conflict with the Bible. Evolution is one interpretation and this interpretation does indeed conflict with the Bible. The reason for this is simply that the foundation and purpose of evolution is to try to explain the facts and laws of science by the denial of God. It is a futile, intellectual sounding, yet desperate attempt replace Him and our accountability toward Him with chance or other impersonal mechanisms. You WILL DIE and then face Him as your judge. Then you will get what you DESERVE, as will every other human. Right now however you may accept His grace through FAITH in Jesus and NOT get what you deserve when you have to appear in the supreme court of the Universe. Those who refuse grace and mercy will nevertheless receive perfect justice.
..... It's popular with people who don't want to believe they will have to answer to a high power than themselves.....
How very true! Evolution gives no hope nor dread of what happens after death. All humans will find out after their last heartbeat, whether their belief was correct. There is one verse in the Bible, just one sentence.
"It is appointed unto man to die once, but after that comes the judgment" (Hebrews 9:26)
Nobody disputes the first part of this ONE sentence, but everyone who believes in evolution fervently denies the second part. News for all evolution believers: The second part is just as true and the first part. There is a coming judgment! Everyone WILL appear before God. There are no exception nor choice in this.
However today, while you are still breathing God offers grace and forgiveness in Jesus for those who BELIEVE. For the others, they will get what they deserve from a perfectly just and righteous God.
....Intelligent Design must be taken on faith....
Much of what we do is based on faith. When you get on an airplane, you take on faith that the DESIGNERS and builders thereof did their math correctly and made a reasonably safe airplane. When you take an elevator, you have faith that the cables will carry the load. You don't KNOW that they will, but have faith that the builders were reasonable and did the right thing. When you get in your car, you have faith that others, whom you have never met, will stop for the red light etc.
Why then is it not also reasonable that there is a designer that made your eyes, a device more complex and versatile than the most advanced camera? Why is it termed to be unreasonable that someone came up with all the complex, interacting laws and relationships we observe, called the laws of physics. These have been observed to apply to the most distant objects and places equally. If evolution were true and there is not just one designer, why should a chance process not involving ONE mind make these rules the same in the entire universe?
To me it is much more unreasonable to attribute human creations to design and the more complex "natural" creation to chance or other processes not involving the activity of a mind. All design implies a designer, natural or manmade.