......Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.......
If the nation as a whole is analogous to a business, then taxation is equivalent to the overhead of that business. The question then becomes: "How much overhead is too much?" Many businesses don't find this out in time and go bankrupt and cease to exist. If you study the histories of the great empires of the past, you will learn that excessive taxation was always a large contributing factor to their eventual demise.
When a society begins to forcibly take wealth from those who work harder, smarter or just are lucky, and hand it to those who do not contribute, the end of that society is guaranteed. If a person, or group of person has their wealth taken from them, either after or before death, that wealth (capital) is no longer available to provide jobs and deprives the government of far more income in the long run, than what may have been collected from the estate. The owner of a large farm dies and because of death taxes, the property must be sold, subdivided and made into housing tracts. This takes a valuable food producing asset as well as an environmentally friendlier use away from society. Taxes should be based on the CURRENT ability to pay from current income, not on what is left over after all taxes have already paid by the living.
.....I will NOT have encrypted data stored on my systems unless I know the keys to decrypt it....
I generally feel that way also, but in the case of Apple's DRM you can always burn your music onto CDs unencrypted for safekeeping. If you re-rip them into MP3s you do lose quality, but then any downloaded music is not for audiophiles anyway. You'll never hear the difference while sitting on a bus, jogging or riding in a car, while listening to your iPod. For anyone who has spent thousands on a top notch sound system, buying full quality CDs if really the only way to get the full performance quality such a system can provide. Some *real* dyed in the wool audio enthusiasts insist that vinyl LPs have the best sound still.
......as it teaches the public that DRM is ok.....
The public outside of/. doesn't really care about DRM either way. All Joe user wants to do is use the purchased music in pretty much the same ways he/she is used to. Apple's DRM allows users to do this. You may copy songs to CDs to play in cars etc, copy songs to one or more ipods and play them on several computers. I doubt that the iTunes downloads would change much one way or the other if there were no DRM. Apple just had to do that to appease the recording companies. Maybe downloads would even go up because of the DRM haters not downloading anything now.
Apple also doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force the buying as much as a single song from the ITMS. Just go down to your favorite new or used CD retailer and buy your favorite plain or copy protected CDs. Sony's infamous rootkit CDs work on Macs like any other normal CD you buy. It's the crummy Windows "features" that allow such copy protection shenanigans to even work. DRM will die if it ever becomes draconian enough to prevent most users from doing whatever they have been used to doing with the content they plunked their hard earned cash down for.
........I'd much rather wait for it on DVD and watch it from the peace and quiet of my home.......
Renting a film that can be safely shown to families with children is the way to go. Projecting a huge picture on a wall and a multi-speaker sound system together with drinks and popcorn is a great way to have a good time with the families of friends. For the price of a movie ticket we can entertain a dozen people on a rainy Friday night.
.....The Jews had no hand in killing Jesus. If they had, they would have done it themselves and not gotten the romans to do it.....
I can see that you have read neither the Bible nor history. The Jews did not have the right to execute anyone because they were under occupation by the Romans. That's why they brought Jesus before Pilate who was a political coward and gave in to their cries 'crucify'. Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the RELIGIOUS leaders of the Jews. The Romans had no laws against blasphemy against the Jews' God and that's why Pilot wanted to let Jesus go.
If you make announcements to the world, base them on what is correct not wishful thinking.
Yes, its freedom to practice the Islamic religion, and only a particular brand of it. Religion of all kinds has been used as a means to control the many by the few. Jesus challenged this in His time and was executed by the state at the behest of the religious powers whose feathers he ruffled severely. Whenever any particular religious group gets too powerful, they tend to oppress those who believe differently. This is not confined to groups based on religion, but can be any political or philosophical ideology. There are people who want power over others and use whatever means is available to get it.
.....Aside from education, inteligence, or any other valued trait of the human race, I think simple self-awareness stands a very good chance of being selected out.....
Do you really think that the builders of the pyramids, the great wall of china, the gardens and mathematical skill of ancient Babylon, were any less intelligent then the people who design computer systems or any of our other modern technologies?
Evolution seems to be a very broad term, being applied to mechanism of adaptation of humans and other creatures to the evolving of one celled creatures into complex living systems.
What other creatures are "self aware"? Is education necessary for intelligence? Can intelligence even be objectively measured without relying on the educational, cultural experiences of both the examiner and the examined? If and "intelligent" being from another planet came, could we measure its intelligence?
Dolphins and Elephants appear to have a large measure of what has been called intelligence. Do they reproduce every time they are able or are there other consideration that enter whether they "choose" to reproduce? Might be a good research project for someone.
Why even bother talking about local access as a security issue? All an attacker need to do is bring an OSX installation CD and boot the computer with it. After that, reset the password and go from there. If the computer is not physically secure, the thief might just steal the whole thing and be done with it. I could also use the computer to be hacked as an external firewire drive on an old TI Powerbook running OS9 and do anything at all, since OS9 ignores all permissions.
There is no way any computer can be secure if the attacker has unhindered physical access to it.
....Desktops are often shared among members of the family, and even friends that are visiting. Your fourteen year old son's friend comes over, jumps on to check his email- he has access......
If a person has physical access to your computer and comes prepared to hack it, there is nothing that can secure it. Bring a laptop and a firewire cable. Reboot the victim computer in disk mode and use it as an external drive on the laptop. Booting from an OSX installation disk should also allow a new admin password to be generated. Apple tells you that's what you must do if you forget your password. 99.99% of all computer attacks come from the network. What will make OSX MUCH safer is unplugging it from any network and keeping it in a locked room guarded by a mean Rottweiler. The next level of safety is turning it off entirely and put it in the doghouse with the Rottweiler.
....Voila! You're now running an old version......
If you upgrade any of your computers to the latest version of iTunes, you have to upgrade the others also if you are using the music store. The first time after upgrading, when you connect to the ITMS, it makes a note in your account that you are using the newest version which has a different protocol that the previous versions. Then when you try to go back to using an older version you are told that all computers using that iTunes account must be upgraded. They are nice enough though to tell you this before you upgrade your older version, at least in OSX. I think the change has something to do with making the DRM harder to circumvent.
....That is not precisely what's addressed by the 2nd law of THERMO dynamics, genius. Just the heat......
The principle of entropy has far wider applicability than only thermodynamics. Look up the topic in the WIKI pages.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, and although not impossible, it is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container.
-----Demonstrate, then, how those missing links can be bridged by Intelligent Design.-----
I have never asserted that ID, creationism nor EVOLUTION can do this. ALL of them are unable to prove their dogmas by *any* repeatable experiments or measurements, as is done in other REAL science. Since we don't have a time machine, we can only deal with the present. Evolutions asserts that things happened in the past which we cannot duplicate today. From your personal attacks, I'd make the evolutionary prediction that if there were evolution, your descendants (if any) will nastier than a cornered rat.
Real science with experiments and observations, demonstrating the mathematical preciseness and PREDICTABILITY of nature is only about 400 years old. Before then, "science" was limited to philosophical discussions of various beliefs. That is where evolution is still today, since there is not, neither can there be, solid, repeatable, mathematically defined experiments or observations to prove its assertions. I'm not calling my belief in ID science and your belief in evolution has no business masquerading as science either.
.....Those experiments are great and all, but you have completely failed to show that they apply to living systems which DO process energy to reduce entropy. That's exactly what they do. All day long.....
When you apply your intelligence to reducing the clutter entropy in your house, you prove that energy alone is not enough. My whole point all along has been that entropy reduction also requires the input of information. DNA is not the information but is merely the information carrier.
----What is "complexity" and "simplicity" in your argument?-----
An example of simplicity is inorganic chemistry based on the combination of two to four elements. If the elements are present under the proper conditions of temperature and pressure the reactions proceed with no regard for the timed order of assembly. The compounds formed have relatively few atoms.
In contrast, complexity is the time ordered assembly of hundreds or even thousands of atoms into structures which in turn are subassemblies incorporated into systems which have the capability reproducing themselves from the basic elements found in their environment.
Such complicated assembly processes need to be directed by large amounts of precise information or programs. My quarrel with both the evolutionary and ID/creationist theories is that NONE of them can show by true scientific experiments where this unbelievably huge amount of information originated. We know it is there and it is used in concert with energy and materials to work, for a time, in opposition to the universal principle of entropy. This is evidenced by all life forms.
You may find a working, complex computer, but just from that alone it is impossible to determine where the software therein came from by *anything* you could possibly do to examine it. You may examine its chips and functions and wonder in awe who may have come up with it, but there are no experiments or procedures whereby you will determine its origin. This is true of the living systems even more so, than of a manmade device like a computer.
-----If you have a problem with the origin of DNA, I can understand that-----
I don't have a problem with that at all. The problem I have is that its origin cannot be proven by a scientific experiment and therefore any such explanation is OUTSIDE the realm of science. It matters not whether this explanation is attempted by those in evolutionist, creationist, or intelligent design camps.
-----Nobody is totally sure how it happened.-----
There you have exactly summarized what I am trying to tell you. If you are not sure of an assertion someone makes, then you must either BELIEVE it or disbelieve. I happen to believe that there is a programmer, a designer who made it all happen, but there is no proof in the scientific sense that my belief is correct. The converse is also true for those who do NOT believe someone programmed the codes of life. This is why all discussions of origins, being outside the possibility of experimental proofs should not bear the label of and masquerade as science.
....That's the "voodoo thermodynamics" that creationists who have never taken a proper physics class like to apply.....
The principle of entropy has far wider applicability than only thermodynamics. Look it up on WIKI under second law of thermodynamics.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, although not impossible. It is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container.
If you have two such containers connected with a pipe, the pressure in both of them will be equal. If you can do an experiment by which you are able to move all or, to make it easy, 99% of the gas molecules into only ONE of the containers, you will have reduced the entropy of the system. The constraint to your experiment however is that you are allowed to use energy alone and be dependent on probabilistic procedures. You may NOT employ any kind of pump or mechanism that has a design component.
If you are hung up with the temperature aspect of the second law you may substitute two copper blocks for the containers and a solid copper rod in place of the pipe. Now you must make one copper block cooler and the other hotter. However, the total thermal energy content of the system may not change, in the same way that the sum total of molecules in the two gas containers never changes. Just one gets hotter, while the other get correspondingly cooler. Again, no designed heat transfer device is permissible. This experiment is harder to do, because whole apparatus must of course be thermally isolated from the environment to prevent heat from "leaking" away which would be equivalent having a hole in one or both of the gas holders.
If you can do such an experiment, you will have shown that entropy can be reduced by energy input alone.
You keep dancing around the issue of real science having to prove theories by experiment. No experiment has ever shown complexity arising from simplicity by *any* purely probabilistic, statistical process. That is what must be shown in some way by experiment. DNA stores the information how to construct enzymes and proteins, yet the DNA is made of these. So what came first, the proteins that make the DNA or the DNA that has the instructions to make the proteins of which it is made. Chicken or egg anyone?
------Argh! More tortured analogies!-----
Furthermore, the structure of a computer is avery apt analogy to biological systems, especially humans. All atoms in your body and mine are individually identical. It is only in their precise arrangement as dictated by the software program in the DNA codes that makes us different. In the same way, Windows or Linux and some hackers have also run Mac OSX on the same hardware box. In each case, it is only the software that changes to make them very different. DNA is like a disk and drive that has all the design information on it how to construct them. How then did the first disk drive get made?
If you find a computer with programs in it, there is no experiment you can do to prove or disprove the existence of a programmer. In the same way, there is no way to prove by experiment the existence or non-existence of the programmer who wrote the codes in the DNA. That is why evolution and ID are BOTH philosophies or beliefs masquerading as science.
....how does the 2nd Law NOT apply to the assembly of a child from a unicellular structure by simply adding food, water, and energy.....
The second law says that everything goes from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity. It requires energy and the information or programming to counteract this tendency. Lack of order equates to lack of information needed to create the order to counter the law of entropy. You cannot get around the fact that entropy and information are inversely related.
The code stored in the DNA molecules is the INFORMATION or program that directs the food and energy to accomplish the end goal of reproduction. You can think of the physical cell as the computer hardware, the food as the energy source to run the circuits and the code in the DNA as the program. All programs are products of thought arising in a mind, both for manmade computers and the programs in the DNA. Having the computer hardware and plugging the computer in the outlet is not enough. There has to be the program that directs the purpose of the computer. Food and water by themselves also are insufficient. The program that exactly tells how to utilize this food and water MUST also be present. There is no way around that fact.
The the structure of the muscles themselves and chemical reactions that allow then to operate upon command from the nervous system are all precisely programmed in the codes of the DNA.
Since neither evolution not ID can prove by experiment where that information or programming originated, they are not true science. Evolutionists delude themselves and others by asserting that their belief qualifies as science. People choose to BELIEVE one or the other, but neither can be proved. Once asserts that there is a programmer of life and the other denies there is.
For this reason, both should be taught on equal footing in philosophy or religion classes, but not as science. Neither so called creation science nor evolution are science, but beliefs. You can choose and cling to your beliefs and I can have mine.
.....Mail services largely agree that they should have the right to offer people sending mail the option of paying for faster delivery of their content, i.e. first-class stamps......
But what the telcos want to do is charge not a flat fee for each envelope, but according to what its content is and who is sending it. They want to charge Google 50 cents per letter and you only pay 39 cents, because they think that the information in Google's letter to you is more valuable. Since they also still do voice phone, they want to throw away your letters that contain voice information or charge BOTH you and recipients exorbitant prices for such letters.
....The more SBC makes off of broadband access, the more incentive there is to start new businesses offering broadband access.....
The problem is that it's very expensive and in many cases impossible to dig up the street and bury more lines. Wireless spectrum is also limited and has been bought up by these same carriers. Utilities don't lend themselves to easy competition and their use of public rights of way gives the public a right to promulgate rules they must follow.
A new liquor or any other kind of store can be built in many places and is not dependent for its main business function on the use of something owned by the public.
.....On the other hand, internet access is heavily regulated (albeit indirectly via telecommunications). The result is that my options for access are greatly limited. This is due to regulation and government interference in the market......
Utilities are by their nature limited to monopolies. It is economics that mandates only one set of roads, electric wires, water and gas pipes, phone and TV cables in a community. The entity that controls these delivery systems MUST serve the public first and their own interest second.
Milk, beer and most other commodities lend themselves to be delivered by multiple delivery means. They can be regulated by competition, but infrastructures must be regulated by someone looking out for the public's interest. Government has been in this role, but is increasingly subject to manipulation by the owners of these infrastructures. The Telecoms want the government to protect them from content liability lawsuits and at the same time let them charge the public whatever they wish. They can't have it both ways. The government could tell them OK, you may meter and control the bits in any way you wish, but as soon as you do, you'll be liable for whatever content these bits may convey over your pipes. Given this choice they'd let the bits pass their networks uncounted and unmolested.
.....In a system without corporations, the person you hired would get sued for it......
In our legal system it is the ones with deep pockets that get sued. The business person has the deep pockets, not the employee. Justice and culpability have not much bearing on who gets sued. Poor people don't get sued, because the lawyers get nothing out of it, since there is no money to collect. If someone contemplates suing you for something (anything) their lawyer will first check if there is the possibility of collecting (assets or insurance). I there is nothing to be gotten, you won't get sued. Whether they really have a case is only looked at after it is ascertained there is money to be had, especially for the lawyers.
Calling people bad names and getting angry, using abusive language just PROVES that you have no real answers. Astronomy is an experimental science. Spectra from stars and the laws of their motions are mathematically defined and PREDICTABLE. Evolution is backward looking, but all true science can also make mathematical projections based on experiments and repeatable measurements of observations. Helium was discovered on the Sun by light spectrum measurements before we found it on Earth.
Entropy is not only relevant to thermal applications but also has to do with the statistics of order. EVERYTHING, whether manmade or natural is subject to decay and wearing out, WITHOUT exception. The only way to counteract this tendency is to apply energy and the INFORMATION of how and where to apply the correct amount of energy. Nothing EVER becomes more orderly without these two factors. Your messy and disorderly room will get more messed up unless you supply the energy and know how to clean it up periodically. You can twist and turn all you like, but there is no way to get around that FACT which is experienced every day of life by every human on this planet including you. You too are getting older every day and eventually are going to DIE and all the complex systems of your body will simplify back to the elements. Evolution preaches this contradiction against what everybody experiences and is the basis of the religion of atheism. NOTHING about evolutionary theory is mathematically quantifiable or predictable. Name a formula that states how a reptile becomes a bird!
-----Except in the fossil record. Blind?-----
The fossil record shows a record of living things in the past, but doesn't show how they "evolved" from one group to another. The "missing links" are STILL missing. Evolution cannot be shown to be occurring today and has NO mathematical basis, such as all the other real sciences. The fossil records show what was, but there us no way to tell from that how it came to be that way. You are willfully ignoring what is true by your BELIEF in a conjecture that is proven false every day in your life. You can mock me, but you will find it futile to mock the truth, for it will mock you in the end, and that will be very sad.
....The organism that does a better job of surviving is the one that procreates. It's as simple as that......
I call that adaptation, but if you want to call it evolution, that's OK. I have no quarrel at all with the idea that organisms that can better adapt to environmental changes. How does the fact that e-coli or moths or rabbits or you name it are able to ensure survival of its group, prove the heart of evolutionary dogma?
What is NOT proven is how this relates to a single cell organism evolving into an exceedingly complex system of cells, such as a human body? How can any conceivable collection of 92 chemical elements create a single cell or even a virus? Do an experiment to show this and you will win the Nobel Prize.
Survival of the fittest is a fact, but that doesn't show us how simple systems become more complex. This progression from simplicity to complexity is postulated in no other idea of science EXCEPT evolutionary dogma. In ALL other sciences it is experimentally possible to show that complex systems break down into simpler parts as time goes forward. That's why that part of evolution is not science, but belief.
....Perfect example: Bacteria becoming resistant to medications? If you don't think that that is evolution....
That is adaptation, "survival of the fittest", but in no way proves that is the mechanism by which you get from a single cell to a complex creature such as my cat. Living things are PROGRAMMED to survive and propagate their genes.
Name me just ONE experiment that shows how a single cell organism "evolves" into a complex multi cell creature.
....Im sorry, but 'modern science' has only been around for... ooh around 400 years or so.....
Exactly true. Before experimental science was born, philosophers had all sorts of theories about the world we live in. Most of them were disproved by experiments, often at great cost, to the early brave souls who went against the prevailing wisdom.
Because evolution nor ID cannot be verified by modern experimental methods, neither are science. Evolutionists always bring up the subject of time, lots of it when confronted with the fact that nobody has demonstrated or observed evolution happening today.
What other widely held theories of science are there, besides evolution and ID and other origin conjectures, that do not have even ONE experiment to prove their main assertions? A theory that cannot be ultimately be proved in the laboratory is only a belief system. I happen to BELIEVE in a transcendent Creator God as the originator of all things. You happen to believe something else. However, unlike REAL science, neither your belief concerning origins nor mine has been proved true or false by countless experiments, such as is the case in true science. Therefore, both your and my beliefs should be discussed in a philosophy or religion class, but not as science.
......By what criteria would you like to have it demonstrated? If you mean the large-scale evolution of microbes into mammals....
Take any collection of cells you wish and make a self-sustaining multi-cellular organism. A dozen or so cells will be good enough for a demo, even though real organisms have millions of cells organized into complex structures. Whenever evolutionists are asked to show by EXPERIMENT that their theory is real science they always come out with the old worn out excuse of time. Immense periods of time are needed. In every science, except the philosophy of evolution, time is always the enemy of organization. Whether manmade or natural, complex systems break down into simpler ones. This is demonstrated to you in all areas of life. You and your new car are both subject to wearing out. Once the you die, the genetic codes, the information therein combined with an energy supply cease to operate and your body breaks down into the basic elements.
-----So, faced with an example of small-scale evolution clearly occurring------
Living things are very adaptable and in that sense, "survival of the fittest" is certainly valid. However, the urge to survive by adapting to stress in no way proves the claim of evolution from the simple to the complex. Natural selection is NOT a process that explains or even attempts to explain how a single celled creature became say an elephant. It simply states that within a grouping of organisms, the ones that adapt best to environmental stresses are the ones in that group that tend to reproduce that group.
-----Not knowing exactly how to make it happen doesn't mean the theory is invalid.----
You state that evolution is fact, yet say that not knowing still makes a valid theory! Facts are things we know. You name me ONE other real science that is NOT based on doing experiments and measurements in the lab other than the pseudo-science of evolution. The principles of thermonuclear fusion have been awesomely demonstrated at the Bikini Atoll and billions are being spent to harness this energy in a reactor.
------We have a gigantic ball of flaming light pouring energy into the system, which can directly be proven to drive evolution's movement.-----
It is you that has no understanding of entropy. Here is a quote from the relevant section of WIKI. Look the whole article up. Pay special attention to the "arrow of time" part.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, and although not impossible, it is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container. If you have two such containers connected with a pipe, the pressure in both of them will be equal. If you replace the pipe with an intelligently designed power-driven pump, you can get all or most of the atoms into one container only. If you supply energy only, such as heating the pipe or the container(s), there will be be an equal increase of pressure in both containers. Only the DESIGNED pump, supplying energy does the job. Simply put, the sun supplies the energy for all life, but there is also INFORMATION or knowledge needed how and where to apply that energy.
Information is a product of mind and evolution denies that there is a mind behind the complexity of life. A computer without a program is a door stop. Programs only arise in minds.
-----That life evolved from simpler forms to more complex forms isn't so much a theory as an observed fact.-----
This process has neither been observed happening today in nature, nor has anybody MADE it happen
....."Intelligent Design" was created with the explicit purpose of advancing the position of Judeo-Christian belief in American public schools......
Evolution attempts to explain origins apart from the activity of mind. It is at a loss to determine where the tremendous amount of information implied in highly ordered living systems comes from. It is like finding a computer with complex programs inside and not wishing to acknowledge the existence of programmers. To make a complex system from simpler parts always requires energy and more importantly, some information on exactly where and how this energy needs to be applied in order to achieve the more complex system. Nobody denies that all human creative activity first arises in a human mind. All the complex gadgets we use today came to be by processes of thought in a human mind. Why then is it so unreasonable to theorize that the unimaginably more complex structures and systems we see in nature also first arose in a mind, one far greater than any human mind?
Evolution not science, but philosophy. You can hold whatever philosophical or religious position you wish, just don't call any of these science. Neither ID nor the mindless evolution theory have been tested by experiments however. Science is done ONLY by experiments to reveal TRUTH. Evolution, ID, creationism are conjectures to which varying numbers of people subscribe. Just because some of these people who believe a particular conjecture are labeled "scientists", does not make them so. Both theories should be taught in a philosophy or religion class, because neither is science.
......The reality is that evolution is a fact, we can see it happening everyday, as viruses and bacteria become resistant or mutate into new species in response to their environment (that's what biological evolution is)......
Evolution has never been duplicated in a lab. Adaptation of moths or bacteria to environmental stress is not evolution. The only science that is TRUE science is experimental science. The origin of life itself cannot be shown experimentally. Nobody has ever taken any mixture of all 92 elements, none of which have ever been part of something alive, and created any life. Using chemicals that had been part of a living organism does not make life from non-life. Even making a self sustaining living cell out of a mixture of amino acids have never been done in a lab. Let someone actually MAKE even a simple virus from scratch and then maybe the speculation can be called science.
Evolution tries to apply to living systems what applies nowhere else -- namely that systems left to themselves become more complex, rather than breaking down into simpler components.
Evolution teaches that over large spans of time, simple cells evolved into complex animals -- even eventually humans. No experiment has ever been done to prove even the smallest link in such an amazing chain of events. No assembly of individual parts, whether living or not, has ever been made into a complex functioning system without the instructions needed to do so.
Evolutionists try to convince us and themselves, that complex living structures, such as brains, eyes, ears, circulatory systems all came into being without detailed instructions and knowledge of how put them all together. Hemoglobin molecules are very complex structures that have a very precise arrangements of atoms.
Evolution claims that the complex arises from the simple. Entropy says the opposite, that complex things break down into their simpler parts. So which theory is correct? We observe the effects of entropy every day, but not the opposite, evolution.
Evolution and ID are philosophical or religious notions of how things came to be, but are not science, since neither have been nor can be demonstrated or refuted by experiment. Experiments or observations of the great adaptability of organisms do not demonstrate true Darwinian evolution as commonly preached in our classrooms today. The whole concept of man having crawled out of the primal ooze is a figment of scientific philosophers imagination. No experiment has EVER been done to demonstrate even ONE of the many steps along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
......Because the property you earned during you life work and investiments was due to a stable society, economy and government investment in infastructure.......
If the nation as a whole is analogous to a business, then taxation is equivalent to the overhead of that business. The question then becomes: "How much overhead is too much?" Many businesses don't find this out in time and go bankrupt and cease to exist. If you study the histories of the great empires of the past, you will learn that excessive taxation was always a large contributing factor to their eventual demise.
When a society begins to forcibly take wealth from those who work harder, smarter or just are lucky, and hand it to those who do not contribute, the end of that society is guaranteed. If a person, or group of person has their wealth taken from them, either after or before death, that wealth (capital) is no longer available to provide jobs and deprives the government of far more income in the long run, than what may have been collected from the estate. The owner of a large farm dies and because of death taxes, the property must be sold, subdivided and made into housing tracts. This takes a valuable food producing asset as well as an environmentally friendlier use away from society. Taxes should be based on the CURRENT ability to pay from current income, not on what is left over after all taxes have already paid by the living.
.....I will NOT have encrypted data stored on my systems unless I know the keys to decrypt it....
I generally feel that way also, but in the case of Apple's DRM you can always burn your music onto CDs unencrypted for safekeeping. If you re-rip them into MP3s you do lose quality, but then any downloaded music is not for audiophiles anyway. You'll never hear the difference while sitting on a bus, jogging or riding in a car, while listening to your iPod. For anyone who has spent thousands on a top notch sound system, buying full quality CDs if really the only way to get the full performance quality such a system can provide. Some *real* dyed in the wool audio enthusiasts insist that vinyl LPs have the best sound still.
......as it teaches the public that DRM is ok.....
/. doesn't really care about DRM either way. All Joe user wants to do is use the purchased music in pretty much the same ways he/she is used to. Apple's DRM allows users to do this. You may copy songs to CDs to play in cars etc, copy songs to one or more ipods and play them on several computers. I doubt that the iTunes downloads would change much one way or the other if there were no DRM. Apple just had to do that to appease the recording companies. Maybe downloads would even go up because of the DRM haters not downloading anything now.
The public outside of
Apple also doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force the buying as much as a single song from the ITMS. Just go down to your favorite new or used CD retailer and buy your favorite plain or copy protected CDs. Sony's infamous rootkit CDs work on Macs like any other normal CD you buy. It's the crummy Windows "features" that allow such copy protection shenanigans to even work. DRM will die if it ever becomes draconian enough to prevent most users from doing whatever they have been used to doing with the content they plunked their hard earned cash down for.
........I'd much rather wait for it on DVD and watch it from the peace and quiet of my home.......
Renting a film that can be safely shown to families with children is the way to go. Projecting a huge picture on a wall and a multi-speaker sound system together with drinks and popcorn is a great way to have a good time with the families of friends. For the price of a movie ticket we can entertain a dozen people on a rainy Friday night.
.....The Jews had no hand in killing Jesus. If they had, they would have done it themselves and not gotten the romans to do it. ....
I can see that you have read neither the Bible nor history. The Jews did not have the right to execute anyone because they were under occupation by the Romans. That's why they brought Jesus before Pilate who was a political coward and gave in to their cries 'crucify'. Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the RELIGIOUS leaders of the Jews. The Romans had no laws against blasphemy against the Jews' God and that's why Pilot wanted to let Jesus go.
If you make announcements to the world, base them on what is correct not wishful thinking.
......the freedom to practise religion.....
Yes, its freedom to practice the Islamic religion, and only a particular brand of it. Religion of all kinds has been used as a means to control the many by the few. Jesus challenged this in His time and was executed by the state at the behest of the religious powers whose feathers he ruffled severely. Whenever any particular religious group gets too powerful, they tend to oppress those who believe differently. This is not confined to groups based on religion, but can be any political or philosophical ideology. There are people who want power over others and use whatever means is available to get it.
.....Aside from education, inteligence, or any other valued trait of the human race, I think simple self-awareness stands a very good chance of being selected out.....
Do you really think that the builders of the pyramids, the great wall of china, the gardens and mathematical skill of ancient Babylon, were any less intelligent then the people who design computer systems or any of our other modern technologies?
Evolution seems to be a very broad term, being applied to mechanism of adaptation of humans and other creatures to the evolving of one celled creatures into complex living systems.
What other creatures are "self aware"? Is education necessary for intelligence? Can intelligence even be objectively measured without relying on the educational, cultural experiences of both the examiner and the examined? If and "intelligent" being from another planet came, could we measure its intelligence?
Dolphins and Elephants appear to have a large measure of what has been called intelligence. Do they reproduce every time they are able or are there other consideration that enter whether they "choose" to reproduce? Might be a good research project for someone.
....Local access can be gained by.....
Why even bother talking about local access as a security issue? All an attacker need to do is bring an OSX installation CD and boot the computer with it. After that, reset the password and go from there. If the computer is not physically secure, the thief might just steal the whole thing and be done with it. I could also use the computer to be hacked as an external firewire drive on an old TI Powerbook running OS9 and do anything at all, since OS9 ignores all permissions.
There is no way any computer can be secure if the attacker has unhindered physical access to it.
....Desktops are often shared among members of the family, and even friends that are visiting. Your fourteen year old son's friend comes over, jumps on to check his email- he has access......
If a person has physical access to your computer and comes prepared to hack it, there is nothing that can secure it. Bring a laptop and a firewire cable. Reboot the victim computer in disk mode and use it as an external drive on the laptop. Booting from an OSX installation disk should also allow a new admin password to be generated. Apple tells you that's what you must do if you forget your password. 99.99% of all computer attacks come from the network. What will make OSX MUCH safer is unplugging it from any network and keeping it in a locked room guarded by a mean Rottweiler. The next level of safety is turning it off entirely and put it in the doghouse with the Rottweiler.
....Voila! You're now running an old version......
If you upgrade any of your computers to the latest version of iTunes, you have to upgrade the others also if you are using the music store. The first time after upgrading, when you connect to the ITMS, it makes a note in your account that you are using the newest version which has a different protocol that the previous versions. Then when you try to go back to using an older version you are told that all computers using that iTunes account must be upgraded. They are nice enough though to tell you this before you upgrade your older version, at least in OSX. I think the change has something to do with making the DRM harder to circumvent.
....That is not precisely what's addressed by the 2nd law of THERMO dynamics, genius. Just the heat......
The principle of entropy has far wider applicability than only thermodynamics. Look up the topic in the WIKI pages.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, and although not impossible, it is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container.
-----Demonstrate, then, how those missing links can be bridged by Intelligent Design.-----
I have never asserted that ID, creationism nor EVOLUTION can do this. ALL of them are unable to prove their dogmas by *any* repeatable experiments or measurements, as is done in other REAL science. Since we don't have a time machine, we can only deal with the present. Evolutions asserts that things happened in the past which we cannot duplicate today. From your personal attacks, I'd make the evolutionary prediction that if there were evolution, your descendants (if any) will nastier than a cornered rat.
Real science with experiments and observations, demonstrating the mathematical preciseness and PREDICTABILITY of nature is only about 400 years old. Before then, "science" was limited to philosophical discussions of various beliefs. That is where evolution is still today, since there is not, neither can there be, solid, repeatable, mathematically defined experiments or observations to prove its assertions. I'm not calling my belief in ID science and your belief in evolution has no business masquerading as science either.
.....Those experiments are great and all, but you have completely failed to show that they apply to living systems which DO process energy to reduce entropy. That's exactly what they do. All day long.....
When you apply your intelligence to reducing the clutter entropy in your house, you prove that energy alone is not enough. My whole point all along has been that entropy reduction also requires the input of information. DNA is not the information but is merely the information carrier.
----What is "complexity" and "simplicity" in your argument?-----
An example of simplicity is inorganic chemistry based on the combination of two to four elements. If the elements are present under the proper conditions of temperature and pressure the reactions proceed with no regard for the timed order of assembly. The compounds formed have relatively few atoms.
In contrast, complexity is the time ordered assembly of hundreds or even thousands of atoms into structures which in turn are subassemblies incorporated into systems which have the capability reproducing themselves from the basic elements found in their environment.
Such complicated assembly processes need to be directed by large amounts of precise information or programs. My quarrel with both the evolutionary and ID/creationist theories is that NONE of them can show by true scientific experiments where this unbelievably huge amount of information originated. We know it is there and it is used in concert with energy and materials to work, for a time, in opposition to the universal principle of entropy. This is evidenced by all life forms.
You may find a working, complex computer, but just from that alone it is impossible to determine where the software therein came from by *anything* you could possibly do to examine it. You may examine its chips and functions and wonder in awe who may have come up with it, but there are no experiments or procedures whereby you will determine its origin. This is true of the living systems even more so, than of a manmade device like a computer.
-----If you have a problem with the origin of DNA, I can understand that-----
I don't have a problem with that at all. The problem I have is that its origin cannot be proven by a scientific experiment and therefore any such explanation is OUTSIDE the realm of science. It matters not whether this explanation is attempted by those in evolutionist, creationist, or intelligent design camps.
-----Nobody is totally sure how it happened.-----
There you have exactly summarized what I am trying to tell you. If you are not sure of an assertion someone makes, then you must either BELIEVE it or disbelieve. I happen to believe that there is a programmer, a designer who made it all happen, but there is no proof in the scientific sense that my belief is correct. The converse is also true for those who do NOT believe someone programmed the codes of life. This is why all discussions of origins, being outside the possibility of experimental proofs should not bear the label of and masquerade as science.
....That's the "voodoo thermodynamics" that creationists who have never taken a proper physics class like to apply.....
The principle of entropy has far wider applicability than only thermodynamics. Look it up on WIKI under second law of thermodynamics.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, although not impossible. It is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container.
If you have two such containers connected with a pipe, the pressure in both of them will be equal. If you can do an experiment by which you are able to move all or, to make it easy, 99% of the gas molecules into only ONE of the containers, you will have reduced the entropy of the system. The constraint to your experiment however is that you are allowed to use energy alone and be dependent on probabilistic procedures. You may NOT employ any kind of pump or mechanism that has a design component.
If you are hung up with the temperature aspect of the second law you may substitute two copper blocks for the containers and a solid copper rod in place of the pipe. Now you must make one copper block cooler and the other hotter. However, the total thermal energy content of the system may not change, in the same way that the sum total of molecules in the two gas containers never changes. Just one gets hotter, while the other get correspondingly cooler. Again, no designed heat transfer device is permissible. This experiment is harder to do, because whole apparatus must of course be thermally isolated from the environment to prevent heat from "leaking" away which would be equivalent having a hole in one or both of the gas holders.
If you can do such an experiment, you will have shown that entropy can be reduced by energy input alone.
You keep dancing around the issue of real science having to prove theories by experiment. No experiment has ever shown complexity arising from simplicity by *any* purely probabilistic, statistical process. That is what must be shown in some way by experiment. DNA stores the information how to construct enzymes and proteins, yet the DNA is made of these. So what came first, the proteins that make the DNA or the DNA that has the instructions to make the proteins of which it is made. Chicken or egg anyone?
------Argh! More tortured analogies!-----
Furthermore, the structure of a computer is avery apt analogy to biological systems, especially humans. All atoms in your body and mine are individually identical. It is only in their precise arrangement as dictated by the software program in the DNA codes that makes us different. In the same way, Windows or Linux and some hackers have also run Mac OSX on the same hardware box. In each case, it is only the software that changes to make them very different. DNA is like a disk and drive that has all the design information on it how to construct them. How then did the first disk drive get made?
If you find a computer with programs in it, there is no experiment you can do to prove or disprove the existence of a programmer. In the same way, there is no way to prove by experiment the existence or non-existence of the programmer who wrote the codes in the DNA. That is why evolution and ID are BOTH philosophies or beliefs masquerading as science.
....how does the 2nd Law NOT apply to the assembly of a child from a unicellular structure by simply adding food, water, and energy.....
The second law says that everything goes from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity. It requires energy and the information or programming to counteract this tendency. Lack of order equates to lack of information needed to create the order to counter the law of entropy. You cannot get around the fact that entropy and information are inversely related.
The code stored in the DNA molecules is the INFORMATION or program that directs the food and energy to accomplish the end goal of reproduction. You can think of the physical cell as the computer hardware, the food as the energy source to run the circuits and the code in the DNA as the program. All programs are products of thought arising in a mind, both for manmade computers and the programs in the DNA. Having the computer hardware and plugging the computer in the outlet is not enough. There has to be the program that directs the purpose of the computer. Food and water by themselves also are insufficient. The program that exactly tells how to utilize this food and water MUST also be present. There is no way around that fact.
The the structure of the muscles themselves and chemical reactions that allow then to operate upon command from the nervous system are all precisely programmed in the codes of the DNA.
Since neither evolution not ID can prove by experiment where that information or programming originated, they are not true science. Evolutionists delude themselves and others by asserting that their belief qualifies as science. People choose to BELIEVE one or the other, but neither can be proved. Once asserts that there is a programmer of life and the other denies there is.
For this reason, both should be taught on equal footing in philosophy or religion classes, but not as science. Neither so called creation science nor evolution are science, but beliefs. You can choose and cling to your beliefs and I can have mine.
.....Mail services largely agree that they should have the right to offer people sending mail the option of paying for faster delivery of their content, i.e. first-class stamps......
But what the telcos want to do is charge not a flat fee for each envelope, but according to what its content is and who is sending it. They want to charge Google 50 cents per letter and you only pay 39 cents, because they think that the information in Google's letter to you is more valuable. Since they also still do voice phone, they want to throw away your letters that contain voice information or charge BOTH you and recipients exorbitant prices for such letters.
....The more SBC makes off of broadband access, the more incentive there is to start new businesses offering broadband access.....
The problem is that it's very expensive and in many cases impossible to dig up the street and bury more lines. Wireless spectrum is also limited and has been bought up by these same carriers. Utilities don't lend themselves to easy competition and their use of public rights of way gives the public a right to promulgate rules they must follow.
A new liquor or any other kind of store can be built in many places and is not dependent for its main business function on the use of something owned by the public.
.....On the other hand, internet access is heavily regulated (albeit indirectly via telecommunications). The result is that my options for access are greatly limited. This is due to regulation and government interference in the market......
Utilities are by their nature limited to monopolies. It is economics that mandates only one set of roads, electric wires, water and gas pipes, phone and TV cables in a community. The entity that controls these delivery systems MUST serve the public first and their own interest second.
Milk, beer and most other commodities lend themselves to be delivered by multiple delivery means. They can be regulated by competition, but infrastructures must be regulated by someone looking out for the public's interest. Government has been in this role, but is increasingly subject to manipulation by the owners of these infrastructures. The Telecoms want the government to protect them from content liability lawsuits and at the same time let them charge the public whatever they wish. They can't have it both ways. The government could tell them OK, you may meter and control the bits in any way you wish, but as soon as you do, you'll be liable for whatever content these bits may convey over your pipes. Given this choice they'd let the bits pass their networks uncounted and unmolested.
.....In a system without corporations, the person you hired would get sued for it......
In our legal system it is the ones with deep pockets that get sued. The business person has the deep pockets, not the employee. Justice and culpability have not much bearing on who gets sued.
Poor people don't get sued, because the lawyers get nothing out of it, since there is no money to collect. If someone contemplates suing you for something (anything) their lawyer will first check if there is the possibility of collecting (assets or insurance). I there is nothing to be gotten, you won't get sued. Whether they really have a case is only looked at after it is ascertained there is money to be had, especially for the lawyers.
......Astronomy.....
Calling people bad names and getting angry, using abusive language just PROVES that you have no real answers. Astronomy is an experimental science. Spectra from stars and the laws of their motions are mathematically defined and PREDICTABLE. Evolution is backward looking, but all true science can also make mathematical projections based on experiments and repeatable measurements of observations. Helium was discovered on the Sun by light spectrum measurements before we found it on Earth.
Entropy is not only relevant to thermal applications but also has to do with the statistics of order. EVERYTHING, whether manmade or natural is subject to decay and wearing out, WITHOUT exception. The only way to counteract this tendency is to apply energy and the INFORMATION of how and where to apply the correct amount of energy. Nothing EVER becomes more orderly without these two factors. Your messy and disorderly room will get more messed up unless you supply the energy and know how to clean it up periodically. You can twist and turn all you like, but there is no way to get around that FACT which is experienced every day of life by every human on this planet including you. You too are getting older every day and eventually are going to DIE and all the complex systems of your body will simplify back to the elements. Evolution preaches this contradiction against what everybody experiences and is the basis of the religion of atheism. NOTHING about evolutionary theory is mathematically quantifiable or predictable. Name a formula that states how a reptile becomes a bird!
-----Except in the fossil record. Blind?-----
The fossil record shows a record of living things in the past, but doesn't show how they "evolved" from one group to another. The "missing links" are STILL missing. Evolution cannot be shown to be occurring today and has NO mathematical basis, such as all the other real sciences. The fossil records show what was, but there us no way to tell from that how it came to be that way. You are willfully ignoring what is true by your BELIEF in a conjecture that is proven false every day in your life. You can mock me, but you will find it futile to mock the truth, for it will mock you in the end, and that will be very sad.
....The organism that does a better job of surviving is the one that procreates. It's as simple as that......
I call that adaptation, but if you want to call it evolution, that's OK. I have no quarrel at all with the idea that organisms that can better adapt to environmental changes. How does the fact that e-coli or moths or rabbits or you name it are able to ensure survival of its group, prove the heart of evolutionary dogma?
What is NOT proven is how this relates to a single cell organism evolving into an exceedingly complex system of cells, such as a human body? How can any conceivable collection of 92 chemical elements create a single cell or even a virus? Do an experiment to show this and you will win the Nobel Prize.
Survival of the fittest is a fact, but that doesn't show us how simple systems become more complex. This progression from simplicity to complexity is postulated in no other idea of science EXCEPT evolutionary dogma. In ALL other sciences it is experimentally possible to show that complex systems break down into simpler parts as time goes forward. That's why that part of evolution is not science, but belief.
....Perfect example: Bacteria becoming resistant to medications? If you don't think that that is evolution....
That is adaptation, "survival of the fittest", but in no way proves that is the mechanism by which you get from a single cell to a complex creature such as my cat. Living things are PROGRAMMED to survive and propagate their genes.
Name me just ONE experiment that shows how a single cell organism "evolves" into a complex multi cell creature.
....Im sorry, but 'modern science' has only been around for ... ooh around 400 years or so.....
Exactly true. Before experimental science was born, philosophers had all sorts of theories about the world we live in. Most of them were disproved by experiments, often at great cost, to the early brave souls who went against the prevailing wisdom.
Because evolution nor ID cannot be verified by modern experimental methods, neither are science. Evolutionists always bring up the subject of time, lots of it when confronted with the fact that nobody has demonstrated or observed evolution happening today.
What other widely held theories of science are there, besides evolution and ID and other origin conjectures, that do not have even ONE experiment to prove their main assertions? A theory that cannot be ultimately be proved in the laboratory is only a belief system. I happen to BELIEVE in a transcendent Creator God as the originator of all things. You happen to believe something else. However, unlike REAL science, neither your belief concerning origins nor mine has been proved true or false by countless experiments, such as is the case in true science. Therefore, both your and my beliefs should be discussed in a philosophy or religion class, but not as science.
......By what criteria would you like to have it demonstrated? If you mean the large-scale evolution of microbes into mammals....
Take any collection of cells you wish and make a self-sustaining multi-cellular organism. A dozen or so cells will be good enough for a demo, even though real organisms have millions of cells organized into complex structures. Whenever evolutionists are asked to show by EXPERIMENT that their theory is real science they always come out with the old worn out excuse of time. Immense periods of time are needed. In every science, except the philosophy of evolution, time is always the enemy of organization. Whether manmade or natural, complex systems break down into simpler ones. This is demonstrated to you in all areas of life. You and your new car are both subject to wearing out. Once the you die, the genetic codes, the information therein combined with an energy supply cease to operate and your body breaks down into the basic elements.
-----So, faced with an example of small-scale evolution clearly occurring------
Living things are very adaptable and in that sense, "survival of the fittest" is certainly valid. However, the urge to survive by adapting to stress in no way proves the claim of evolution from the simple to the complex. Natural selection is NOT a process that explains or even attempts to explain how a single celled creature became say an elephant. It simply states that within a grouping of organisms, the ones that adapt best to environmental stresses are the ones in that group that tend to reproduce that group.
-----Not knowing exactly how to make it happen doesn't mean the theory is invalid.----
You state that evolution is fact, yet say that not knowing still makes a valid theory! Facts are things we know. You name me ONE other real science that is NOT based on doing experiments and measurements in the lab other than the pseudo-science of evolution. The principles of thermonuclear fusion have been awesomely demonstrated at the Bikini Atoll and billions are being spent to harness this energy in a reactor.
------We have a gigantic ball of flaming light pouring energy into the system, which can directly be proven to drive evolution's movement.-----
It is you that has no understanding of entropy. Here is a quote from the relevant section of WIKI. Look the whole article up. Pay special attention to the "arrow of time" part.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, and although not impossible, it is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container. If you have two such containers connected with a pipe, the pressure in both of them will be equal. If you replace the pipe with an intelligently designed power-driven pump, you can get all or most of the atoms into one container only. If you supply energy only, such as heating the pipe or the container(s), there will be be an equal increase of pressure in both containers. Only the DESIGNED pump, supplying energy does the job. Simply put, the sun supplies the energy for all life, but there is also INFORMATION or knowledge needed how and where to apply that energy.
Information is a product of mind and evolution denies that there is a mind behind the complexity of life. A computer without a program is a door stop. Programs only arise in minds.
-----That life evolved from simpler forms to more complex forms isn't so much a theory as an observed fact.-----
This process has neither been observed happening today in nature, nor has anybody MADE it happen
....."Intelligent Design" was created with the explicit purpose of advancing the position of Judeo-Christian belief in American public schools......
Evolution attempts to explain origins apart from the activity of mind. It is at a loss to determine where the tremendous amount of information implied in highly ordered living systems comes from. It is like finding a computer with complex programs inside and not wishing to acknowledge the existence of programmers. To make a complex system from simpler parts always requires energy and more importantly, some information on exactly where and how this energy needs to be applied in order to achieve the more complex system. Nobody denies that all human creative activity first arises in a human mind. All the complex gadgets we use today came to be by processes of thought in a human mind. Why then is it so unreasonable to theorize that the unimaginably more complex structures and systems we see in nature also first arose in a mind, one far greater than any human mind?
Evolution not science, but philosophy. You can hold whatever philosophical or religious position you wish, just don't call any of these science. Neither ID nor the mindless evolution theory have been tested by experiments however. Science is done ONLY by experiments to reveal TRUTH. Evolution, ID, creationism are conjectures to which varying numbers of people subscribe. Just because some of these people who believe a particular conjecture are labeled "scientists", does not make them so. Both theories should be taught in a philosophy or religion class, because neither is science.
......The reality is that evolution is a fact, we can see it happening everyday, as viruses and bacteria become resistant or mutate into new species in response to their environment (that's what biological evolution is)......
Evolution has never been duplicated in a lab. Adaptation of moths or bacteria to environmental stress is not evolution. The only science that is TRUE science is experimental science. The origin of life itself cannot be shown experimentally. Nobody has ever taken any mixture of all 92 elements, none of which have ever been part of something alive, and created any life. Using chemicals that had been part of a living organism does not make life from non-life. Even making a self sustaining living cell out of a mixture of amino acids have never been done in a lab. Let someone actually MAKE even a simple virus from scratch and then maybe the speculation can be called science.
Evolution tries to apply to living systems what applies nowhere else -- namely that systems left to themselves become more complex, rather than breaking down into simpler components.
Evolution teaches that over large spans of time, simple cells evolved into complex animals -- even eventually humans. No experiment has ever been done to prove even the smallest link in such an amazing chain of events. No assembly of individual parts, whether living or not, has ever been made into a complex functioning system without the instructions needed to do so.
Evolutionists try to convince us and themselves, that complex living structures, such as brains, eyes, ears, circulatory systems all came into being without detailed instructions and knowledge of how put them all together. Hemoglobin molecules are very complex structures that have a very precise arrangements of atoms.
Evolution claims that the complex arises from the simple. Entropy says the opposite, that complex things break down into their simpler parts. So which theory is correct? We observe the effects of entropy every day, but not the opposite, evolution.
Evolution and ID are philosophical or religious notions of how things came to be, but are not science, since neither have been nor can be demonstrated or refuted by experiment. Experiments or observations of the great adaptability of organisms do not demonstrate true Darwinian evolution as commonly preached in our classrooms today. The whole concept of man having crawled out of the primal ooze is a figment of scientific philosophers imagination. No experiment has EVER been done to demonstrate even ONE of the many steps along the way.