....involves just dragging the application (or the folder it's in) from the CD into the Applications folder....
For an ordinary user, the Mac ALWAYS asks for an admin password in order to make any change to the Applications folder. If the user is dumb enough to be logged in as an admin, then it does not. Making every user only a standard user goes a long way towards preventing a messed up system. A regular user can still install some, but not all programs in their own user space. However such installs will only affect that user and not the system or other users.
.....After a short while, typing in your password becomes as much of an unconscious acticity as pressing "OK".....
That's why most users around here don't KNOW the admin password. When we set up brand new Macs for others, we always make at least two accounts. One for administration and the others for everyday normal users. Users who must be given the admin password are admonished NEVER to give that password unless they are expecting to be asked for it when installing or upgrading software. So far, none of them has been hit with any shady programming because of this. Unlike our Windows users, the Mac users can do everything they need to without even knowing the admin password.
This should work in most homes, where the parents are the only one who know the master password. That way the kids can't so easily mess up the whole computer. ALL games even work just fine without the master password, once they are properly set up.
.....Why hasn't this designer released Human 2.0?.....
So why don't you or some evolutionist "evolve" s better design. By best effort it ought to be possible to figure out how to prevent the law of entropy from affecting the design, not only of humans, but of everything else, whether natural or manmade. Since the DNA code for building a new breathing tube has not been written, why doesn't someone add that into the human OS? Don't knock someon'e product unless you can come up with something superior.
The basic problem with evolution is that nobody has demonstrated any of its processes by a repeatable experiment. The biggest problem isn't how living organisms change or mutate, but how to make a living thing, such as an amoeba, from non-living matter. If evolution were really true SOMEONE should have been able to duplicate evolution and make a living cell. A repeatable experiment or a consistent observation is science. Anything else is belief. Evolution is simply the belief that things just happened by any other means besides the activity of mind and the best efforts of human minds have never duplicated.
If I make a better mousetrap, someone should able to take it apart and figure out how to duplicate it and perhaps even to imrove it. That's why we patent things so that someone can't just look at something anyone else has built and duplicate it for profit. In human creations, anything can be duplicated by other humans. Yet in natural things, such as even a "simple" one celled organism, nobody has yet duplicated one from parts that were never part of a living thing before.
There are many questions that evolution cannot answer. The original chicken and egg question concerning DNA and proteins is one. DNA carries the information on how to build proteins, but DNA itself is made with proteins. So what came first? A disk drive contains all the information and capability on how to build itself. How does the first drive get built if there is no other drive to read out the information on how to make one in the first place? The answer of course in all cases is that someone outside has the information on how to build one, makes the first one, and then after it is built, records the information on that first model. After that as many proteins or other living things can be made from the encoded information combined with the available raw materials. We all understand these principles when it comes to human creations, but many are unwilling to apply these same principles to the natural world.
....The claim is that not only is there a designer, he's supposedly omniscient.....
ID as such doesn't make any statements about the nature of the designer, only that there must be one because of the complexity and laws of nature. There are proponents of ID who are anything but religious. Science students should be told that evolution is not the ONLY explanation for how things came to be. There are valid SCIENTIFIC alternatives that highly educated scientists can defend with evidence at least as strong as the evidence for evolution.
The nature and origin of the designer cannot be fathomed by science and any attempt to do so should be done in a religion class, not science. In the science class, students can be told that some highly qualified scientists have compelling evidence for a designer. The scientific evidence both for evolution and design should be presented. However, any questions about the nature and origin of such a designer cannot and should not be answered in a science class. If students ask questions about the nature of such a designer or creator, they should be referred to their pastor, rabbi or parents.
As I pointed out earlier, studying a human design can tell us some things about the designer. So it is also true of the designer of nature. Science however is the study of the design itself ONLY and any inferences about the designer rightfully belongs into a religion class in church or in the home.
.....There are multiple clocks, multiple mechanisms....
The problem is that time itself is not absolute. Einstein has shown that and it has been experimentally verified. If space-time changes, the clocks, all of them, will change also and thus all agree. As the universe expanded, space-time expanded with it and whatever clocks we might use to determine time past need take that into account. When the universe was small and dense, the nature of space and gravity were such that the atomic processes by which we measure time today were much faster then. Since the universe is still observed to be expanding, the clocks used to measure atomic time are also still slowing down.
Indeed, we are studying the mind of God. Just as you can tell some things about a designer of a human product, so it is possible to tell some things about God in His design of nature. That is the realm of science.
Just as it is impossible to know the person of a human design, it is impossible to know the God of nature unless both of these persons choose to REVEAL things about themselves that can only by known by communication from both. In the case of God, studying that revelation is religion, not science.
.....It is not possible to infer that because a system or a process is elaborate and in some sort of equilibrium, there is intelligence behind it.....
So then if you come across a car or computer program it is not possible to infer that it came into being by the activity of mind, a human intelligent mind?
Most people accept that man made stuff is first conceived in a human mind. Why not accept that "natural" things were first conceived in a mind. Accepting that will not affect science and technologial progress.
Exploring the nature of such a mind is not science, but religion.
.....Science, on the other hand, gives us new questions....
Admitting that things got here by design does not preclude new questions. The questions just are formulated differently. The question becomes: How does this work and how can we benefit by knowing that.
We can study say the design of a car or computer program, but that doesn't mean we have to deny the existence of their designer. The design can still be studied and all sorts of questions concerning the design can be explored. The study of how cells and galaxies behave the way they do doesn't change if you admit that they were designed by an intelligent mind. We can still explore these things and gain insights that lead to new technologies for the benefit of mankind.
By studying a manmade design you can learn some things about the designer, but not others. If you study a computer program you can learn that its writer was pretty smart or maybe not, a careful or sloppy documenter of the code and so forth, but you learn nothing about the person him or herself. To learn those things, the creator of the program would have to give you some REVELATION about him/herself. That is the religion part, not the study of the program which is science.
Of course animals and other living things change. How evolution explains the adaptation of living things is not the issue. It is its attempt to apply these to the creation of living things from the basic elements that is the problem. Living things are incredibly adaptable and do "evolve" in that sense. Evolution posits that there are "natural" processes, laws of physics and chemistry by which evolution works, but fails to address the origin of these laws. Why do evolutionists so desperately want to exclude at all costs and reason, the possiblity that there is the activity of a mind behind the natural world, just as there is the activity of minds behind all the things humans bring into existence? Admitting the existence of such a mind would not affect the development of vaccines, Mars exploration or any other scientific or technological endeavor.
Determining the nature of such a mind is, has been and always will be the realm of faith and religion, not science and should not be addressed in a science class.
.....Why are you unwilling to accept quantum mechanics as a useful description of atomic behavior....
I am perfectly willing and do accept this. Still, even at absolute zero, the motion of the electrons, however you wish to describe it does not come to a halt. Therefore there is still energy contained in the atom. If it can be discovered how to extract this minimum energy, would the atom be detroyed or would the extracted energy be replenished by the zero point energy? Conservation laws would go against the destruction of the atom. There is no law of physics that says that the energy of the electrons cannot be brought lower than whatever the "rest" or base energy of the atoms are. Nobody has figured out how to extract this residual energy yet and the claims of the article have yet to be verified. Extracting this energy would not violate any known laws of nature. Doing this extraction to a large pile of atoms would produce enormous amounts of useable energy. So often "they" said it could not be done and then somone who did not know or believe this went and did it anyway.
.....Could you please rephrase this. I don't understand what you're trying to say...
Evolutionists since Darwin have come up with all sorts of explanations for the origin of the world around us, involving all kinds of ideas. The only idea that has been and still is consistently rejected by many scientists studying origins, is the possiblity that the activity of a mind, a highly intelligent mind, was involved in how things came to be as they are.
Nobody would propose that a complex man created device like a computer or airplane, or even a simple one like a pencil came into being without processes involving the human mind. Yet when it comes to the incredible complexity of the living world or the laws and parameters of physics, it supposedly all came into existence by *any* other means except the activity of a mind.
.....Second, there are currently no scientific theories that explain the development of life as well as evolution does. It is the most widely accepted theory by a huge margin.....
Evolution does not explain how an amoeba can be produced from the basic elements. It can explain how an amoeba can adapt to various environmental challenges, but it will always be an amoeba. We can breed all sorts of dogs, but nobody has ever 'evolved' a dog into a rabbit or cat. Moths can 'evolve' by adapting their coloring so they won't be spotted and eaten as readily by predators, but they will always forever be only moths. Evolution can expain some things reasonably well, but fails miserably in others. It is not an all inclusive theory of how things came to be as we see them today. There should be room for theories to be explored and debated that may give a better explanation where evolution is deficient.
Science is not really concerned with WHY, but with how things work. Evolution is more about origins than about how a liver or whatever works today. Experiments can be done to determine how something works, but nobody has done an experiment to show how an amoeba can be made from the basic elements. Yet the assumption of evolution is that what has so far eluded the best INTELLIGENT scientists has somehow taken place by *any* other imagined processes, except one --- the activity of mind or intelligence.
....Don't bother questioning why things work the way they do.....
Science is able to answer "how" questions, but not why. A proton is exactly 1836 times more massive than an electron. Science can tell how that affects the behavior of matter, but has no explanation why it that ratio and no other. The "when" questions are not really able to be answered without extrapolating present day processes to the distant past. The assumption (faith) is that these processes, such as radioactivity, have always been what they are today.
....Evolution becomes a religion when supernatural causes are summarily dismissed.....
Things are only "supernatural" when we don't have a rational explanation. Turning water into wine is no problem for One who knows all the ins and outs of atomic bonding and what matter is REALLY made of. Walking on water should be no trouble to someone who knows things about gravity we have not discovered yet. Materializing in the middle of a closed room should be no preoblem for someone who has access to higher dimensions than we do.
The probem with evolution is that it attempts to explain how things came to be by *any* means that exclude the activity of a mind. We don't do that to explain things like airplanes or computers origin. Evolution IS a religion whose basic tenet is atheism. There is no mind behind the complex things that science explores.
.....And besides, last I checked, a week is like a few billion years to him....
According to the Bible, God's time scale is more like a day to a thousand years. (Psalm90, 2Peter3) The Bible only directly mentions time scales in the thousands of years. Nowhere are numbers in the millions or billions mentioned.
When anyone is skeptical of how complex structures such as the human eye-brain system can come into existence by any means not involving the activity of a mind, the answer is always the same. Time, uninaginably huge periods of time, millions or billions of years.
Measuring time requires a clock. One clock used to date things is radioactivity of certain elements. The assumption is (faith) that the rate of decay has remained constant or at least known over the period of time in question. There is increasing evidence that these decay rates have changed and are still changing. Whatever other clocks might be used also have to be questioned whether they have maintained the tick rate we see today.
Nobody would propose that a complex man created device like a computer or airplane, or even a simple one like a pencil came into being without processes involving the human mind. Yet when it comes to the incredible complexity of the living world or the laws and parameters of physics, it all came into existence by *any* other means except the activity of a mind.
So many basic relationships of physics are interrelated, such that if any one of them were changed, we would not exist. Evolution theory claims that it operates by natural laws, but it never explains where these laws came from.
To me it is much easier to believe that a great mind conceived of and brought into being the laws that govern the universe and then, according to these laws directed the creation, much as outlined in Genesis.
....It will take a LOT more to prove that life evolved from basic matter, the "primordial goo" hypothesis, is what is full of holes.....
Exactly. it takes proteins to make the skeleton structure for DNA. But it is the DNA that carries the codes for how to make proteins. So we have the molecular equivalent of the chicken and egg problem. Biomolecules, such as hemoglobin for example, consist of thousands of atoms of various kinds in very precise, specific arrangements, as specified by the DNA codes in living creature. Where did the information codes stored in the DNA come from that direct the construction of complex bimolecules?
I'll believe in evolution when some scientist makes a "simple" living one celled reproducing organism out of anything they want to, as long as none of the components ever came from something that was alive at any time.
....."actually orbiting" the nucleus as a planet orbits the sun....
OK, not orbiting in the planetary sense, but the electrons are neverthless in a NONLINEAR motion as determined by the electromagnetic fields within the atom, between the nucleus and the electrons. In comparison to the size of the nucleus and the electrons the dimensions of an atom are huge -- mostly "empty" space. So the questions still remains: Why does the nonliner path of the electron not cause it to produce Cerenkov radiation and lose energy thereby. Nobody knows the answer why it should not. If the behavior of the electron is consistent both inside and outside the atom then the energy lost has to be supplied from somewhere. In a circular accelerator or storage ring, an external energy source of RF is needed to keep the beams constant.
Opposite charges attract, so why are the negative electrons not attracted by and swallowed up by the much larger nucleus? In planetary orbits, the centrifugal force of a satellite balances its attraction to Earth. Unless there is a mechanism that causes the satellite to lose kinetic energy (slow down), it will remain in orbit. In a similar manner, although not "orbits" in the planetary sense, the kinetic energy of the electrons prevents them from crashing into the nucleous. By external stimuli it is possible to change these electron energies in quantized steps, either up or down. However, it seems that these energies can never be reduced below a certain minimum for each kind of atom. If it were possible to temporarily reduce the energy below that minimum, then that reduction would be available for external use.
After the extra energy was extracted, the zero point energy would act to restore the electron energy back to its higher, "normal" minimum and then the cycle could be repeated. The trick is to figure out how to reduce some of the electron energies below their "normal minimum" for enough time to allow the extraction of this energy.
If the inventor managed to do this somehow, it simply means that he has made some of the zero point energy accessible to be used for useful work. The question is IF?
.....Look in rocks estimated to be 100 million years old? You'll see 100 million year old fossils, with characteristics similar to 110 million year old fossils and 90 million year old fossils....
How are these ages determined? Nobody was around then. In order to measure the age of something you need a reliable clock that lasts at least as long as the time you want to measure. The clock also has to tick at a constant rate over the measurement interval. Do we KNOW for sure that whatever clock or timing device is used for this age determination is accurate. What assumptions are made about the clocks we use?
To determine the age of trees, we can count the rings, knowing that one is added for each growing season. What do we count for rocks and fossils?
....we would be able to detect such changes extremely easily, just by observing the few stars closest...
If you google for 'quantized red shift' you will find some interesting information. The traditional doppler theory of the observed shift towards the red end of the spectrum of distant starlight does not fit these observations. However, a shift by a factor of up to 10 billion since the 'big bang' is consistent with the drift downward of the speed of light and a corresponding change of other parameters of the atom fits perfectly.
There is no reason that anyone has ever brought forth that demands that these "constants" remain so over vast periods of time and these shifts HAVE been observed even for the relatively short time we have been measuring these things.
The nature of the medium through which light and other electromagnetic energy propagates influences its velocity. If the intrinsic nature of space itself changes as the universe expands, it stands to reason that the speed at which light travels will also change, as will related parameters governing some of the properties of the atom, such as Planck's "h".
This changing of certain "constants" is perfectly compatible with all known facets of quantum science, but has profound effects on the science of determining how old things are.
.....He's asking us to believe nearly every atom in the universe is not in its lowest energy state. Well, why not?....
Perhaps a related question to this is: Why don't the orbiting electrons of the atoms radiate all their energy away and the electrons "fall" into the nucleus and the atom self destructs? When an electron from an accelerator is subject to acceleration by deflecting it by a magnetic or electric field from a non-linear path, it radiates energy called Cerenkov radiation. This does not happen when the electrons travel nonlinearly around a nucleus. It is not known how electrons "know" they are traveling in a curved path as required by the electric fields of an atoms vs when they are deflected by a magnetic or electric field in a vacuum. Some theories posit that this energy loss does happen, but that the energy the electrons lose this way is made up by an exactly equal energy input from the "zero point energy" of space itself. Zero point energy is the energy left in space that has been cooled to absolute zero temperature.
The amount of energy needed to keep the electrons of all atoms in orbit has been calculated to be truly astronomical. So far, in all our technology, we have only managed to exploit DIFFERENCES in energy. In a heat engine for example it is the difference in pressure and temperature that enables it to do useful work. In a hydroelectric station it is the difference in the potential energy of the water at the two elevations that is utilized by the turbine to do useful work. It is the difference in voltage that drives electrons through a circuit that provides power.
This zero point energy is rather evenly distributed in all of space. It is not easily available to be used as an energy source. However, if a way could be found to utilize even some tiny differences in this unfathomably huge energy, the results would be amazing. Perhaps changing or re-arranging the energy of the orbital electrons of atoms may be a way to extract some this energy in a useful form without violating any well established quantum physics.
No! If the prototype actually does what is claimed, it is a working model, living proof that it works by producing the huge amounts of energy. Explaining HOW or WHY it works as claimed would be the theory. Until such a working model actually exists and can be demonstrated publicly, it appears to be in the same catgory as the "cold fusion" business of some years ago, namely a hoax.
If the prototype power source can run a car 200 miles on a gallon of water, who cares what the theory behind it is? The academicians can figure out later what if any laws of physics are broken, affirmed or newly discovered. Until then, I would not hold my breath or argue back and forth.
One scenario that is not mentioned in the Pioneer Doppler anomaly is that the assumption of the constancy of some of the fundamental "constants" is called into question. This theory of drifting "constants" fits the available data and doesn't need "new physics" or some sort of "mysterious acceleration" or gravitational aberrations.
There are other evidences for the drift of certain parameters of the universe which have for long been assumed to be constant. It seems that in science there is nothing more constant than change.
I did answer. Iraq and Afghanistan got attacked because their governments harbored and supported terrorist groups that attacked the US.
There are 45+ million Arabs alone, and then there are many others against the Jews. Why is there such an irrational hate for such a tiny country of fewer thn 3 million? Why is Jerusalem the only city on Earth where a zoning change threatens world peace and causes government diplomats to burn the midnight oil to try to defuse another crisis? Jerusalem is the convergence point of three great religions and the final war, like so many wars in the past, will be fought for religious reasons, partially over Jerusalem. Because this city is considered holy, it must be conquered and wrested from Israel, not simply incinerated beneath a nuclear mushroom cloud like most any other city would be. That is where the Armageddon thing comes in. This large valley is a natural staging area for any army intent on occupying Jerusalem without first destroying it or its defenders.
The agenda of the radical Muslims is to bring all non-muslim "infidels" into the obedience to Allah, by the power of the sword if need be. The liberal and moderate Muslims who don't have this goal are being shouted down or beaten into submission by these fanatics, who are willing to die for their cause.
I don't know whether Israel has 300 nukes, but I'll take you word for it. If or perhaps more correctly when the US no longer supports them, the enemies of the Jews will take the courage for another try at wiping them off the map. There will be no way that postage stamp country will be able to defend themselves against the massive onslaught of the overhwelming odds EXCEPT by resorting to nukes. For now, the best way to avoid the use of these terrible weapons is for the enemies of the Jews to understand and know that an attack on Israel will be met with the shock and awe of the US military.
It is important for the world to know that a world wide nuclear war could begin once Israel is abandoned by its only defender on Earth, the USA, and is forced to use nuclear weapons.
If your logic were correct, the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia also or instead, especially since most of the terrorists that destroyed the WTC were from there. Afghanistan of course has lot of oil don't they? No, they and Iraq were two leading governments protecting and sponsoring these terrorists. Like one of the previous poster said so well, it takes a lot to get the US "900 pound gorilla" to take action, but once that happens, the recipient gets to experience the 'shock and awe" of the US military. The attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in a war that finally culminated in two nukes lighting up the skies of Japan. I sincerely hope that none of the enemies of the US ever make an extreme enough move to cause retaliation of such intensity.
The radical Muslims the world over hate the tiny democratic nation of Israel with a passion and would like to wipe them off the map. The nation of Iran, working on nuclear arms, just expressed that sentiment. Because the US is about the only country that stands the way of them trying to do that, they hate the US greatly, but because of their fear of the US military they have not yet once again attacked Israel. If a future government of the US is either unwilling or unable to protect Israel, another war against that tiny land is inevitable. If the situation gets desperate enough for the Jews, nuclear weapons are their only option. That will eventually lead the final war for mankind, called Armageddon, named after a valley just north of Jerusalem.
Slashdot Mirror
....involves just dragging the application (or the folder it's in) from the CD into the Applications folder ....
For an ordinary user, the Mac ALWAYS asks for an admin password in order to make any change to the Applications folder. If the user is dumb enough to be logged in as an admin, then it does not. Making every user only a standard user goes a long way towards preventing a messed up system. A regular user can still install some, but not all programs in their own user space. However such installs will only affect that user and not the system or other users.
.....After a short while, typing in your password becomes as much of an unconscious acticity as pressing "OK".....
That's why most users around here don't KNOW the admin password. When we set up brand new Macs for others, we always make at least two accounts. One for administration and the others for everyday normal users. Users who must be given the admin password are admonished NEVER to give that password unless they are expecting to be asked for it when installing or upgrading software. So far, none of them has been hit with any shady programming because of this. Unlike our Windows users, the Mac users can do everything they need to without even knowing the admin password.
This should work in most homes, where the parents are the only one who know the master password. That way the kids can't so easily mess up the whole computer. ALL games even work just fine without the master password, once they are properly set up.
.....Why hasn't this designer released Human 2.0?.....
So why don't you or some evolutionist "evolve" s better design. By best effort it ought to be possible to figure out how to prevent the law of entropy from affecting the design, not only of humans, but of everything else, whether natural or manmade. Since the DNA code for building a new breathing tube has not been written, why doesn't someone add that into the human OS? Don't knock someon'e product unless you can come up with something superior.
The basic problem with evolution is that nobody has demonstrated any of its processes by a repeatable experiment. The biggest problem isn't how living organisms change or mutate, but how to make a living thing, such as an amoeba, from non-living matter. If evolution were really true SOMEONE should have been able to duplicate evolution and make a living cell. A repeatable experiment or a consistent observation is science. Anything else is belief. Evolution is simply the belief that things just happened by any other means besides the activity of mind and the best efforts of human minds have never duplicated.
If I make a better mousetrap, someone should able to take it apart and figure out how to duplicate it and perhaps even to imrove it. That's why we patent things so that someone can't just look at something anyone else has built and duplicate it for profit. In human creations, anything can be duplicated by other humans. Yet in natural things, such as even a "simple" one celled organism, nobody has yet duplicated one from parts that were never part of a living thing before.
There are many questions that evolution cannot answer. The original chicken and egg question concerning DNA and proteins is one. DNA carries the information on how to build proteins, but DNA itself is made with proteins. So what came first? A disk drive contains all the information and capability on how to build itself. How does the first drive get built if there is no other drive to read out the information on how to make one in the first place? The answer of course in all cases is that someone outside has the information on how to build one, makes the first one, and then after it is built, records the information on that first model. After that as many proteins or other living things can be made from the encoded information combined with the available raw materials. We all understand these principles when it comes to human creations, but many are unwilling to apply these same principles to the natural world.
....The claim is that not only is there a designer, he's supposedly omniscient.....
ID as such doesn't make any statements about the nature of the designer, only that there must be one because of the complexity and laws of nature. There are proponents of ID who are anything but religious. Science students should be told that evolution is not the ONLY explanation for how things came to be. There are valid SCIENTIFIC alternatives that highly educated scientists can defend with evidence at least as strong as the evidence for evolution.
The nature and origin of the designer cannot be fathomed by science and any attempt to do so should be done in a religion class, not science. In the science class, students can be told that some highly qualified scientists have compelling evidence for a designer. The scientific evidence both for evolution and design should be presented. However, any questions about the nature and origin of such a designer cannot and should not be answered in a science class. If students ask questions about the nature of such a designer or creator, they should be referred to their pastor, rabbi or parents.
As I pointed out earlier, studying a human design can tell us some things about the designer. So it is also true of the designer of nature. Science however is the study of the design itself ONLY and any inferences about the designer rightfully belongs into a religion class in church or in the home.
.....There are multiple clocks, multiple mechanisms....
The problem is that time itself is not absolute. Einstein has shown that and it has been experimentally verified. If space-time changes, the clocks, all of them, will change also and thus all agree. As the universe expanded, space-time expanded with it and whatever clocks we might use to determine time past need take that into account. When the universe was small and dense, the nature of space and gravity were such that the atomic processes by which we measure time today were much faster then. Since the universe is still observed to be expanding, the clocks used to measure atomic time are also still slowing down.
Indeed, we are studying the mind of God. Just as you can tell some things about a designer of a human product, so it is possible to tell some things about God in His design of nature. That is the realm of science.
Just as it is impossible to know the person of a human design, it is impossible to know the God of nature unless both of these persons choose to REVEAL things about themselves that can only by known by communication from both. In the case of God, studying that revelation is religion, not science.
.....It is not possible to infer that because a system or a process is elaborate and in some sort of equilibrium, there is intelligence behind it.....
So then if you come across a car or computer program it is not possible to infer that it came into being by the activity of mind, a human intelligent mind?
Most people accept that man made stuff is first conceived in a human mind. Why not accept that "natural" things were first conceived in a mind. Accepting that will not affect science and technologial progress.
Exploring the nature of such a mind is not science, but religion.
.....Science, on the other hand, gives us new questions....
Admitting that things got here by design does not preclude new questions. The questions just are formulated differently. The question becomes: How does this work and how can we benefit by knowing that.
We can study say the design of a car or computer program, but that doesn't mean we have to deny the existence of their designer. The design can still be studied and all sorts of questions concerning the design can be explored. The study of how cells and galaxies behave the way they do doesn't change if you admit that they were designed by an intelligent mind. We can still explore these things and gain insights that lead to new technologies for the benefit of mankind.
By studying a manmade design you can learn some things about the designer, but not others. If you study a computer program you can learn that its writer was pretty smart or maybe not, a careful or sloppy documenter of the code and so forth, but you learn nothing about the person him or herself. To learn those things, the creator of the program would have to give you some REVELATION about him/herself. That is the religion part, not the study of the program which is science.
....Want some examples of animals changing?....
Of course animals and other living things change. How evolution explains the adaptation of living things is not the issue. It is its attempt to apply these to the creation of living things from the basic elements that is the problem. Living things are incredibly adaptable and do "evolve" in that sense. Evolution posits that there are "natural" processes, laws of physics and chemistry by which evolution works, but fails to address the origin of these laws. Why do evolutionists so desperately want to exclude at all costs and reason, the possiblity that there is the activity of a mind behind the natural world, just as there is the activity of minds behind all the things humans bring into existence? Admitting the existence of such a mind would not affect the development of vaccines, Mars exploration or any other scientific or technological endeavor.
Determining the nature of such a mind is, has been and always will be the realm of faith and religion, not science and should not be addressed in a science class.
.....Why are you unwilling to accept quantum mechanics as a useful description of atomic behavior....
I am perfectly willing and do accept this. Still, even at absolute zero, the motion of the electrons, however you wish to describe it does not come to a halt. Therefore there is still energy contained in the atom. If it can be discovered how to extract this minimum energy, would the atom be detroyed or would the extracted energy be replenished by the zero point energy? Conservation laws would go against the destruction of the atom. There is no law of physics that says that the energy of the electrons cannot be brought lower than whatever the "rest" or base energy of the atoms are. Nobody has figured out how to extract this residual energy yet and the claims of the article have yet to be verified. Extracting this energy would not violate any known laws of nature. Doing this extraction to a large pile of atoms would produce enormous amounts of useable energy. So often "they" said it could not be done and then somone who did not know or believe this went and did it anyway.
.....Could you please rephrase this. I don't understand what you're trying to say...
Evolutionists since Darwin have come up with all sorts of explanations for the origin of the world around us, involving all kinds of ideas. The only idea that has been and still is consistently rejected by many scientists studying origins, is the possiblity that the activity of a mind, a highly intelligent mind, was involved in how things came to be as they are.
Nobody would propose that a complex man created device like a computer or airplane, or even a simple one like a pencil came into being without processes involving the human mind. Yet when it comes to the incredible complexity of the living world or the laws and parameters of physics, it supposedly all came into existence by *any* other means except the activity of a mind.
.....Second, there are currently no scientific theories that explain the development of life as well as evolution does. It is the most widely accepted theory by a huge margin.....
Evolution does not explain how an amoeba can be produced from the basic elements. It can explain how an amoeba can adapt to various environmental challenges, but it will always be an amoeba. We can breed all sorts of dogs, but nobody has ever 'evolved' a dog into a rabbit or cat. Moths can 'evolve' by adapting their coloring so they won't be spotted and eaten as readily by predators, but they will always forever be only moths. Evolution can expain some things reasonably well, but fails miserably in others. It is not an all inclusive theory of how things came to be as we see them today. There should be room for theories to be explored and debated that may give a better explanation where evolution is deficient.
....Don't bother trying to understand why....
Science is not really concerned with WHY, but with how things work. Evolution is more about origins than about how a liver or whatever works today. Experiments can be done to determine how something works, but nobody has done an experiment to show how an amoeba can be made from the basic elements. Yet the assumption of evolution is that what has so far eluded the best INTELLIGENT scientists has somehow taken place by *any* other imagined processes, except one --- the activity of mind or intelligence.
....Don't bother questioning why things work the way they do.....
Science is able to answer "how" questions, but not why. A proton is exactly 1836 times more massive than an electron. Science can tell how that affects the behavior of matter, but has no explanation why it that ratio and no other. The "when" questions are not really able to be answered without extrapolating present day processes to the distant past. The assumption (faith) is that these processes, such as radioactivity, have always been what they are today.
....Evolution becomes a religion when supernatural causes are summarily dismissed.....
Things are only "supernatural" when we don't have a rational explanation. Turning water into wine is no problem for One who knows all the ins and outs of atomic bonding and what matter is REALLY made of. Walking on water should be no trouble to someone who knows things about gravity we have not discovered yet. Materializing in the middle of a closed room should be no preoblem for someone who has access to higher dimensions than we do.
The probem with evolution is that it attempts to explain how things came to be by *any* means that exclude the activity of a mind. We don't do that to explain things like airplanes or computers origin. Evolution IS a religion whose basic tenet is atheism. There is no mind behind the complex things that science explores.
.....And besides, last I checked, a week is like a few billion years to him....
According to the Bible, God's time scale is more like a day to a thousand years. (Psalm90, 2Peter3) The Bible only directly mentions time scales in the thousands of years. Nowhere are numbers in the millions or billions mentioned.
When anyone is skeptical of how complex structures such as the human eye-brain system can come into existence by any means not involving the activity of a mind, the answer is always the same. Time, uninaginably huge periods of time, millions or billions of years.
Measuring time requires a clock. One clock used to date things is radioactivity of certain elements. The assumption is (faith) that the rate of decay has remained constant or at least known over the period of time in question. There is increasing evidence that these decay rates have changed and are still changing. Whatever other clocks might be used also have to be questioned whether they have maintained the tick rate we see today.
Nobody would propose that a complex man created device like a computer or airplane, or even a simple one like a pencil came into being without processes involving the human mind. Yet when it comes to the incredible complexity of the living world or the laws and parameters of physics, it all came into existence by *any* other means except the activity of a mind.
So many basic relationships of physics are interrelated, such that if any one of them were changed, we would not exist. Evolution theory claims that it operates by natural laws, but it never explains where these laws came from.
To me it is much easier to believe that a great mind conceived of and brought into being the laws that govern the universe and then, according to these laws directed the creation, much as outlined in Genesis.
....It will take a LOT more to prove that life evolved from basic matter, the "primordial goo" hypothesis, is what is full of holes.....
Exactly. it takes proteins to make the skeleton structure for DNA. But it is the DNA that carries the codes for how to make proteins. So we have the molecular equivalent of the chicken and egg problem. Biomolecules, such as hemoglobin for example, consist of thousands of atoms of various kinds in very precise, specific arrangements, as specified by the DNA codes in living creature. Where did the information codes stored in the DNA come from that direct the construction of complex bimolecules?
I'll believe in evolution when some scientist makes a "simple" living one celled reproducing organism out of anything they want to, as long as none of the components ever came from something that was alive at any time.
....."actually orbiting" the nucleus as a planet orbits the sun....
OK, not orbiting in the planetary sense, but the electrons are neverthless in a NONLINEAR motion as determined by the electromagnetic fields within the atom, between the nucleus and the electrons. In comparison to the size of the nucleus and the electrons the dimensions of an atom are huge -- mostly "empty" space. So the questions still remains: Why does the nonliner path of the electron not cause it to produce Cerenkov radiation and lose energy thereby. Nobody knows the answer why it should not. If the behavior of the electron is consistent both inside and outside the atom then the energy lost has to be supplied from somewhere. In a circular accelerator or storage ring, an external energy source of RF is needed to keep the beams constant.
Opposite charges attract, so why are the negative electrons not attracted by and swallowed up by the much larger nucleus? In planetary orbits, the centrifugal force of a satellite balances its attraction to Earth. Unless there is a mechanism that causes the satellite to lose kinetic energy (slow down), it will remain in orbit. In a similar manner, although not "orbits" in the planetary sense, the kinetic energy of the electrons prevents them from crashing into the nucleous. By external stimuli it is possible to change these electron energies in quantized steps, either up or down. However, it seems that these energies can never be reduced below a certain minimum for each kind of atom. If it were possible to temporarily reduce the energy below that minimum, then that reduction would be available for external use.
After the extra energy was extracted, the zero point energy would act to restore the electron energy back to its higher, "normal" minimum and then the cycle could be repeated. The trick is to figure out how to reduce some of the electron energies below their "normal minimum" for enough time to allow the extraction of this energy.
If the inventor managed to do this somehow, it simply means that he has made some of the zero point energy accessible to be used for useful work. The question is IF?
.....Look in rocks estimated to be 100 million years old? You'll see 100 million year old fossils, with characteristics similar to 110 million year old fossils and 90 million year old fossils....
How are these ages determined? Nobody was around then. In order to measure the age of something you need a reliable clock that lasts at least as long as the time you want to measure. The clock also has to tick at a constant rate over the measurement interval. Do we KNOW for sure that whatever clock or timing device is used for this age determination is accurate. What assumptions are made about the clocks we use?
To determine the age of trees, we can count the rings, knowing that one is added for each growing season. What do we count for rocks and fossils?
....we would be able to detect such changes extremely easily, just by observing the few stars closest ...
If you google for 'quantized red shift' you will find some interesting information. The traditional doppler theory of the observed shift towards the red end of the spectrum of distant starlight does not fit these observations. However, a shift by a factor of up to 10 billion since the 'big bang' is consistent with the drift downward of the speed of light and a corresponding change of other parameters of the atom fits perfectly.
There is no reason that anyone has ever brought forth that demands that these "constants" remain so over vast periods of time and these shifts HAVE been observed even for the relatively short time we have been measuring these things.
The nature of the medium through which light and other electromagnetic energy propagates influences its velocity. If the intrinsic nature of space itself changes as the universe expands, it stands to reason that the speed at which light travels will also change, as will related parameters governing some of the properties of the atom, such as Planck's "h".
This changing of certain "constants" is perfectly compatible with all known facets of quantum science, but has profound effects on the science of determining how old things are.
.....He's asking us to believe nearly every atom in the universe is not in its lowest energy state. Well, why not?....
Perhaps a related question to this is: Why don't the orbiting electrons of the atoms radiate all their energy away and the electrons "fall" into the nucleus and the atom self destructs? When an electron from an accelerator is subject to acceleration by deflecting it by a magnetic or electric field from a non-linear path, it radiates energy called Cerenkov radiation. This does not happen when the electrons travel nonlinearly around a nucleus. It is not known how electrons "know" they are traveling in a curved path as required by the electric fields of an atoms vs when they are deflected by a magnetic or electric field in a vacuum. Some theories posit that this energy loss does happen, but that the energy the electrons lose this way is made up by an exactly equal energy input from the "zero point energy" of space itself. Zero point energy is the energy left in space that has been cooled to absolute zero temperature.
The amount of energy needed to keep the electrons of all atoms in orbit has been calculated to be truly astronomical. So far, in all our technology, we have only managed to exploit DIFFERENCES in energy. In a heat engine for example it is the difference in pressure and temperature that enables it to do useful work. In a hydroelectric station it is the difference in the potential energy of the water at the two elevations that is utilized by the turbine to do useful work. It is the difference in voltage that drives electrons through a circuit that provides power.
This zero point energy is rather evenly distributed in all of space. It is not easily available to be used as an energy source. However, if a way could be found to utilize even some tiny differences in this unfathomably huge energy, the results would be amazing. Perhaps changing or re-arranging the energy of the orbital electrons of atoms may be a way to extract some this energy in a useful form without violating any well established quantum physics.
.....If he has a prototype it is a theory....
No! If the prototype actually does what is claimed, it is a working model, living proof that it works by producing the huge amounts of energy. Explaining HOW or WHY it works as claimed would be the theory. Until such a working model actually exists and can be demonstrated publicly, it appears to be in the same catgory as the "cold fusion" business of some years ago, namely a hoax.
....If he's really built a prototype, that is....
If the prototype power source can run a car 200 miles on a gallon of water, who cares what the theory behind it is? The academicians can figure out later what if any laws of physics are broken, affirmed or newly discovered. Until then, I would not hold my breath or argue back and forth.
......We are still exploring our ignorance....
One scenario that is not mentioned in the Pioneer Doppler anomaly is that the assumption of the constancy of some of the fundamental "constants" is called into question. This theory of drifting "constants" fits the available data and doesn't need "new physics" or some sort of "mysterious acceleration" or gravitational aberrations.
There are other evidences for the drift of certain parameters of the universe which have for long been assumed to be constant. It seems that in science there is nothing more constant than change.
.....How come the iraqies got to go first....
I did answer. Iraq and Afghanistan got attacked because their governments harbored and supported terrorist groups that attacked the US.
There are 45+ million Arabs alone, and then there are many others against the Jews. Why is there such an irrational hate for such a tiny country of fewer thn 3 million? Why is Jerusalem the only city on Earth where a zoning change threatens world peace and causes government diplomats to burn the midnight oil to try to defuse another crisis? Jerusalem is the convergence point of three great religions and the final war, like so many wars in the past, will be fought for religious reasons, partially over Jerusalem. Because this city is considered holy, it must be conquered and wrested from Israel, not simply incinerated beneath a nuclear mushroom cloud like most any other city would be. That is where the Armageddon thing comes in. This large valley is a natural staging area for any army intent on occupying Jerusalem without first destroying it or its defenders.
The agenda of the radical Muslims is to bring all non-muslim "infidels" into the obedience to Allah, by the power of the sword if need be. The liberal and moderate Muslims who don't have this goal are being shouted down or beaten into submission by these fanatics, who are willing to die for their cause.
I don't know whether Israel has 300 nukes, but I'll take you word for it. If or perhaps more correctly when the US no longer supports them, the enemies of the Jews will take the courage for another try at wiping them off the map. There will be no way that postage stamp country will be able to defend themselves against the massive onslaught of the overhwelming odds EXCEPT by resorting to nukes. For now, the best way to avoid the use of these terrible weapons is for the enemies of the Jews to understand and know that an attack on Israel will be met with the shock and awe of the US military.
It is important for the world to know that a world wide nuclear war could begin once Israel is abandoned by its only defender on Earth, the USA, and is forced to use nuclear weapons.
Because they have oil
If your logic were correct, the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia also or instead, especially since most of the terrorists that destroyed the WTC were from there. Afghanistan of course has lot of oil don't they? No, they and Iraq were two leading governments protecting and sponsoring these terrorists. Like one of the previous poster said so well, it takes a lot to get the US "900 pound gorilla" to take action, but once that happens, the recipient gets to experience the 'shock and awe" of the US military. The attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in a war that finally culminated in two nukes lighting up the skies of Japan. I sincerely hope that none of the enemies of the US ever make an extreme enough move to cause retaliation of such intensity.
The radical Muslims the world over hate the tiny democratic nation of Israel with a passion and would like to wipe them off the map. The nation of Iran, working on nuclear arms, just expressed that sentiment. Because the US is about the only country that stands the way of them trying to do that, they hate the US greatly, but because of their fear of the US military they have not yet once again attacked Israel. If a future government of the US is either unwilling or unable to protect Israel, another war against that tiny land is inevitable. If the situation gets desperate enough for the Jews, nuclear weapons are their only option. That will eventually lead the final war for mankind, called Armageddon, named after a valley just north of Jerusalem.