......The United States is like a 900-pound gorilla, or a large bear: slow to respond,.....
Indeed, how many attacks were there on US installations by these same terrorists before 911? That even was not the first time these same fanatical Muslims groups attacked the World Trade Center they finally managed to destroy. It was however the straw that finally provoked a powerful if not exactly measured respone.
.....I'm Canadian too. I think the US is a sinking ship.....
I've got news for you! You are on the end of that ship that's going to be in the water first. Years ago, when I first visited Canada your money was worth more than ours. Now one of your dollars is only worth 84 cents. I like Canadians, even married one, and I've enjoyed living with her for over 35 years now. I enjoy to visit up there, especially my in laws and their friends. They seem to complain about high taxes though, much more than our friends down here.
Your socialist system is propped by the US trade which goes in both directions. The economy and population of ONE state, the State of California, exceeds that of Canada by a considerable margin. Whether you like it or not, the US and Canada are pretty much on the same boat. So if you think it is sinking, better start bailing.
......Saddam wasn't really bothering anybody except his neighbors.....
Neither was Adof Hitler. So maybe we should have let him have his way rather than getting France's ass and the rest of Europe out of his grip. After all he was really only bothering his neighbor, France, Holland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc. If I had mod points I'd mod you troll multiplied by flamebait.
.....the angular resolution of the human eye would give you about 54,212 x 54,212 pixels.....
Yeah, and the human eye was not designed, unlike a super HD TV system. The construction of the eye and brain system just happend by the blind random chance vibrations of atoms over millions of years.
The Apostle Paul got it right when he wrote: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
...... I think we'll see more frequent improvements......
Sure, we have seen great progress in fancy computer generated video and sound effects, but what improvements have there been to the PROGRAMS in the last 50 years? The sex has become more explicit and violence has become more graphic, the commercials more frenetic and numerous and the news reports more biased, dismal and depressing.
Other than having to endure all that crap in stunning high and higher resolution, what signs are there that HD or super HD TV or Hollywood's films will reverse that trend?
....Obviously there's the potential for Contempt of Court charges against the Defendant...
Can a person be held in contempt of court for not revealing incriminating information such as a password against him/herself? Where does the 5th amendment to the US constitution come into play here, if it does at all?
.....if you've got any sense you'll buy a new computer.....
If the computer is not yet hopelessly obsolete, why not just replace the HD? No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Send the old HD back to the police and tell them they can keep it.
As far as encryption techniques, are some of them not extremely resistant to cracking by brute force, even with the fastest known computer systems?
As for torture, that doesn't work too well for some. Getting thrown to the lions did not make early Christian renounce their faith. Getting burned alive at the stake was more preferable to some than betray their cause or their fellows. Someone willing to blow him/herself and others to bits for a cause they believe in, is not likely to yield to torture. Even the most powerful Governments on Earth are helpless against someone willing to die for their ideas.
......I guess this makes Linux the superior CD-ripping platform......
What happens if a Mac user puts one of these crap Sony disks into their computer? Our users don't have admin rights to install software. Does that mean the CD won't play? If not, does it state somwhere on the label that this CD will only play on Windows systems? A normal audio CD, when inserted, brings up iTunes and then it can be played or ripped and copied to iPod. Does the Sony DRM prevent Windows users who legally buy their CDs from playing the songs in their iPod?
.....given that there have been a handful of remote arbitrary code exploits for the Mac since moving to OS X......
Don't all of these need to have admin/root access to write themselves into the system? If the standard user doesn't know the admin password then those things shouldn't get in. I never give the admin password if asked out of the blue and nothing can write where it isn't supposed to.
So? On OSX, an ordinary user will get a dialog box into which to enter and admin name and password. The program will install if the user is able to give that, else, tough luck, call your administrator. No need to login in or out.
Not really. As long as there is even ONE software program that mom wants to use that won't run properly without her having admin access, she will get that access. MS should once and for all tell developers that if their programs needs admin access after the initial install, they will NOT be allowed to run. Then you tell mom that if she is ever asked for an administrator password, to call you. I hope they will do this for VISTA, but I'm not going to hold my breath that that will happen.
Doesn't that depend on whether the program to be installed needs access to system directories, such as for drivers? Once the program is installed, why could it not keep the files it needs to change/update in a user's directory? Disk space is pretty cheap these days. That's how it works on Mac OSX. I have never seen a game on a Mac that needs admin access AFTER it is installed. Our users don't get to know the admin password and there has never been a problem with them running games or *any* other programs. Windows has a pretty good permissions system that could go a long ways to prevent the entire system to get hosed by malwares. Creating a new user account is a lot easier than re-installing the entire OS.
.....I'll be blunt: your comments make me sad.....
It is indeed sad when scientists, the very ones who of all people should be open to new ideas supported by evidence, laugh and ridicule those who propose such ideas and the evidence supporting them. The BELIEF in the immense age of the earth is THE key cornerstone of the evolutionary dogma. If that gets demolished by the evidence these scientists have uncovered, the whole evolutionary edifice and many lifetime works of some scientists will coming crashing down into a heap of rubble. This wouldn't be the first time that long held beliefs in various sciences have crumbled to dust over the vehement protestation of the scientific establishment. So often it has been the voice proclaiming an unpopular truth in the wilderness that finally prevailed, usually after a long and bitter struggle.
New evidences of quantum physics were resisted at first even by Einstein. Einstein's theory of relativity was scoffed at. It took 50 years to finally get the fact that light speed is NOT infinitley fast to be accepted over Aristotelian belief that light took no time to travel. The evidence that disease was caused by germs was strenuously resisted by the biologists and medical establishment of the time. Spontaneous generation of flies and maggots, the phlogiston theories of fire and heat and on and on finally gave way to contrary evidence. Science and technology books become obsolete and outdated faster than any other class of human writings, other than perhaps yesterday's newspaper.
So, I agree with you. It is really sad that such dogged resistance to new truth is part of our human nature.
Of course you can. Anybody can sue anybody for anything in our corrupt legal system. But you better make sure you have more money to spend on legal expenses than they do. It's all about money, not liberty and justice for all.
....When you put what you think is an audio CD in your CD ROM drive and click on the drive icon,....
On a Mac, when you put an audio CD in the drive, iTunes opens and you get music. If there were some Mac version of a rootkit installer malware on a DRM-ed CD you would get a window asking for a password, but ONLY after clicking on the installer's icon. There is absolutely NO way to install such crap on a Mac by simply clicking on the CD disk icon or merely putting a CD in the drive. Only after giving the admin password would such garbage be able to install. Around here, none of the users know the admin password. I would fault the insecure Windows OS for a) autorunning the software on a CD and b) for allowing users write access to the deepest system internals without the slightest warning or notice. If Windows were more secure, such dastardly exploits would be a lot harder, although not impossible, since stupid users that know the admin password would likely type it in. Still for a commercial company to stoop to such tactics is abominable and probably skirts the edges of the law.
....Yup: exactly as I thought so: all the physicists I've shown your link to laughed hard.....
Exactly, but then a number of scientists who had revolutionary ideas in their time were laughed at by their peers, but in the end they had the last laugh, even though from the grave for some of them. The quantized redshift evidence by Dr. Tift and others and the evidence for the non-constancy of assumed constants call into serious doubt the unimaginably long time periods that are the cornerstone of the evolutionary dogma.
Strongly held beliefs, including scientific ones, do not fall easily even before the onslaught of repeated evidence calling such beliefs into question. It may yet take some time before the mountain of accummulating new evidence finally crushes the evolutionary dogma preached in today's classrooms. I'm not going to hold my breath, but the sooner that time comes, the better it will be for all of science, especially the study of origins.
....Science says nothing about wether god does or does not exist, nor about wether god created life....
In that case science should restrict itself to experiments that explain how things work, but not try to come up with conjectured explanations of origins. In our everyday experience, complex things like airplanes cars and computers or even simple items, such as a pencil etc. don't arise apart from the input of the activity of mind -- human mind in these cases. Why then does science presume to conjecture that the incredibly more complex structures such as the eye or any other living thing came into being without the activity of some mind?
Leave the study of origins to philosphers and theologians since nobody can do an experiment today how any of the complex living things came to be. Even the exact composition of the Earth's atmosphere long before life came to be is pure conjecture. No scientist was around then to do any objective measurements. They make certain assumptions (faith) about such things but nobody really knows. Based on these assumptions and beliefs how things may have been the set up experiments and the draw conclusions. The Creator gave us a brief outline of what he did in Genesis and believing that by faith is at least as good as believing what the scientist's BELIEF is about how things came into existence. To me the Creators account is more credible since he was there and none of the scientists were witnesses. It is possible to reconstruct a car crash from skid marks and other evidence, but nothing beats a witness who saw it happen. If the testimony of the witness contradicts some of the supposed evidence, a choice has to be made, whether to believe the so called evidence or the eye witness. Myself, I'd be much more inclined to believe the witness.
That happens to be the first, and perhaps only article of faith of the religion of atheism. You believe that by faith, just as millions whom you consider delusional believe in God. Everybody lives by faith, even atheists. If you ever get in an airplane or a car you do so with the belief that the plane or car will get you to your destination. You don't KNOW that the one YOU are in will make it. Cars and airplanes crash sometimes and their occupants are killed. However, such a faith in planes and cars is not unreasonable to YOU and millions of others, including Christians, step out by faith and take the plane. Some people do not have enough faith in airplanes or elevators and take the train or stairs. This true even though they can see airplanes and likely have friends or relatives that have taken airplane and elevator rides safely.
In the same way, many people have a reasonable faith in God and try to some degree at least live accordingly. To you such faith is obviously unreasonable. Many who profess such faith but are hypocrites and do not live as if they REALLY believe in God. Many unbelievers say: "If God would show Himself to me, then I'd believe in Him." God's way of approach is exactly the oppopsite. If you believe in Him, He'll show Himself to you. He did to me and millions of others whom you scoff at and feel superior to.
In things that we know are clearly human creations, we have no trouble attributing those to a designer or maker. Yet strangely, in the much more complex and intricate design of the world that scientists, and especially biologists study, they attribute these to impersonal statistical chance. They deny that an incredibly complex optical device like the human eye has a designer, yet would never attribute a much simpler digicam to a chance origin.
Science is pretty good at explaining HOW things work by doing experiments. Doing experiments to answer WHEN things happened in the past is not so easy. Answering WHY questions is harder yet.
....suggests it is not possible to create molecules such as insulin, chlorophyll etc from basic atomic elements...
It is obviously possible, but its just that no human scientist has ever done it yet. These things exist, but nobody has EVER made such things from the basic elements of nature. These molecular structures contain hundreds or in some cases thousands of atoms in precise arrangements which have not been duplicated in any laboratory. That is a FACT!
.....Everything done so far is consistent with the hypothesis that decay rate is constant......
Yes, and on a cosmological or even human historical time scale, how long have we measuring or even known about such things?
There IS evidence that indicates that some so called constants are anything but constant over LONG periods of time, even only hundreds of years or thousands. You can use this article as a layman's starting point:
It leads to links of more detailed and mathematically dense scientific articles you can wade through if you are so inclined. Googling the names of the scientists mentioned is a good way to begin to pursue this.
My point was that they are observable today because we have developed technology to extend our senses. For the largest fraction of human existence they were NOT observable, but still existed all along. Just because we have not yet developed a "God meter" doesn't mean we never will nor that God doesn't exist.
......Any chance yo0u would provide a reference for your astonishing claim on the changes in decay rates and other constants?......
When I first came across the idea that certain "fundamental" constants of the Universe might be variable, I discounted that. There are many articles concerning mounting evidence that the speed of light and related "constants" have changed, in some cases greatly over long periods of time. One of the best layman's summaries of this I have found is here:
Of all the observations (also mentioned in the Worldnet article) piling up of this change being so, none is more clear and more devastating to current scientific dogma of immense ages of time than Williams Tift's discovery that the red shift is quantized. Below is an excerpt for one of the articles:
It would seem that one person can convince the scientific community if their arguments are good enough. It would be nice if this were the case, but I don't think human nature allows. Francis Bacon was unable to convince the scientistists of his time that the speed of light is finite. John Snow had mediocre success trying to convince the scientists of his time that germs caused disease rather than "miasma." Semmelweiss had practically no success trying to get doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies for pregnant mothers. Or, for a particularly telling example, consider Einstein's theory of relativity. Even TEN YEARS after he had proposed it, including what I think you will agree are rather good reasons, the scientific community refused to accept it. In 1921 when Einstein received the Nobel prize, relativity was not menationed at all! A more modern example is William Tift's work on quantization of red shift. Proposed and supported with evidence in 1977, it has been verified at least 4 times by separate scientists at Oxford, University of Arizona, Canadian National Research Center, and the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh. The last verification was in 2003, yet scientists still refuse to accept it.
In another 50 years, or hopefully sooner the theory of evolution, as presently taught as scientific "truth" will join the long list of discarded notions in the graveyard of dead scientific theories.
....science is only what can be known or observed....
So then before electrons, electromagnetic radiation and so many other things that were unknown and unobservable were supernatural until we discovered how to measure them? We cannot observe God, therefore He doesn't exist until we can invent a God meter. Gravitons are postulated to exist, but we have never observed one yet. However we all experience the force of gravity. In the same way, we all experience life and conscitiousness because it comes from God.
...Why did god do it that way? What was god thinking when the decision was made?....
Why did God make the mass of the proton exactly 1836 times that of the electron? Why are the fundamental parameters and relationships as we observe them? If these were nor so, then we would not be here to observe them is the short answer. Science is not very good at anwering "why" or "when" questions. Experiments and observations mostly answer "how" questions and then we invent explanations, such as evolution, to try to answer the when questions of origins. We also try to find obervational support for our explanations and that is mostly unsuccessful.
Nobody has ever created a living cell from non-living material, yet even so we have learned a lot about cells and HOW they work. WHEN they first appeared and WHY is beyond experimental verification. When science addresses "how" things work, it is mostly on solid experimental and observational ground. The when and why of things begins to overlap in varying degrees into the realm of philosophy and religion. Maybe only the how of things should be taught in "science" classes and the when and why in philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
......The United States is like a 900-pound gorilla, or a large bear: slow to respond,.....
Indeed, how many attacks were there on US installations by these same terrorists before 911? That even was not the first time these same fanatical Muslims groups attacked the World Trade Center they finally managed to destroy. It was however the straw that finally provoked a powerful if not exactly measured respone.
.....I'm Canadian too. I think the US is a sinking ship.....
I've got news for you! You are on the end of that ship that's going to be in the water first. Years ago, when I first visited Canada your money was worth more than ours. Now one of your dollars is only worth 84 cents. I like Canadians, even married one, and I've enjoyed living with her for over 35 years now. I enjoy to visit up there, especially my in laws and their friends. They seem to complain about high taxes though, much more than our friends down here.
Your socialist system is propped by the US trade which goes in both directions. The economy and population of ONE state, the State of California, exceeds that of Canada by a considerable margin. Whether you like it or not, the US and Canada are pretty much on the same boat. So if you think it is sinking, better start bailing.
......Saddam wasn't really bothering anybody except his neighbors.....
Neither was Adof Hitler. So maybe we should have let him have his way rather than getting France's ass and the rest of Europe out of his grip. After all he was really only bothering his neighbor, France, Holland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc. If I had mod points I'd mod you troll multiplied by flamebait.
.....the angular resolution of the human eye would give you about 54,212 x 54,212 pixels.....
Yeah, and the human eye was not designed, unlike a super HD TV system. The construction of the eye and brain system just happend by the blind random chance vibrations of atoms over millions of years.
The Apostle Paul got it right when he wrote: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
...... I think we'll see more frequent improvements......
Sure, we have seen great progress in fancy computer generated video and sound effects, but what improvements have there been to the PROGRAMS in the last 50 years? The sex has become more explicit and violence has become more graphic, the commercials more frenetic and numerous and the news reports more biased, dismal and depressing.
Other than having to endure all that crap in stunning high and higher resolution, what signs are there that HD or super HD TV or Hollywood's films will reverse that trend?
....Obviously there's the potential for Contempt of Court charges against the Defendant...
Can a person be held in contempt of court for not revealing incriminating information such as a password against him/herself? Where does the 5th amendment to the US constitution come into play here, if it does at all?
.....if you've got any sense you'll buy a new computer .....
If the computer is not yet hopelessly obsolete, why not just replace the HD? No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Send the old HD back to the police and tell them they can keep it.
As far as encryption techniques, are some of them not extremely resistant to cracking by brute force, even with the fastest known computer systems?
As for torture, that doesn't work too well for some. Getting thrown to the lions did not make early Christian renounce their faith. Getting burned alive at the stake was more preferable to some than betray their cause or their fellows. Someone willing to blow him/herself and others to bits for a cause they believe in, is not likely to yield to torture. Even the most powerful Governments on Earth are helpless against someone willing to die for their ideas.
......I guess this makes Linux the superior CD-ripping platform......
What happens if a Mac user puts one of these crap Sony disks into their computer? Our users don't have admin rights to install software. Does that mean the CD won't play? If not, does it state somwhere on the label that this CD will only play on Windows systems? A normal audio CD, when inserted, brings up iTunes and then it can be played or ripped and copied to iPod. Does the Sony DRM prevent Windows users who legally buy their CDs from playing the songs in their iPod?
.....given that there have been a handful of remote arbitrary code exploits for the Mac since moving to OS X......
Don't all of these need to have admin/root access to write themselves into the system? If the standard user doesn't know the admin password then those things shouldn't get in. I never give the admin password if asked out of the blue and nothing can write where it isn't supposed to.
...and you have to upgrade now...
So? On OSX, an ordinary user will get a dialog box into which to enter and admin name and password. The program will install if the user is able to give that, else, tough luck, call your administrator. No need to login in or out.
...Your mom. Litereally...
Not really. As long as there is even ONE software program that mom wants to use that won't run properly without her having admin access, she will get that access. MS should once and for all tell developers that if their programs needs admin access after the initial install, they will NOT be allowed to run. Then you tell mom that if she is ever asked for an administrator password, to call you. I hope they will do this for VISTA, but I'm not going to hold my breath that that will happen.
....many software installers....
Doesn't that depend on whether the program to be installed needs access to system directories, such as for drivers? Once the program is installed, why could it not keep the files it needs to change/update in a user's directory? Disk space is pretty cheap these days. That's how it works on Mac OSX. I have never seen a game on a Mac that needs admin access AFTER it is installed. Our users don't get to know the admin password and there has never been a problem with them running games or *any* other programs. Windows has a pretty good permissions system that could go a long ways to prevent the entire system to get hosed by malwares. Creating a new user account is a lot easier than re-installing the entire OS.
.....I'll be blunt: your comments make me sad.....
It is indeed sad when scientists, the very ones who of all people should be open to new ideas supported by evidence, laugh and ridicule those who propose such ideas and the evidence supporting them. The BELIEF in the immense age of the earth is THE key cornerstone of the evolutionary dogma. If that gets demolished by the evidence these scientists have uncovered, the whole evolutionary edifice and many lifetime works of some scientists will coming crashing down into a heap of rubble. This wouldn't be the first time that long held beliefs in various sciences have crumbled to dust over the vehement protestation of the scientific establishment. So often it has been the voice proclaiming an unpopular truth in the wilderness that finally prevailed, usually after a long and bitter struggle.
New evidences of quantum physics were resisted at first even by Einstein. Einstein's theory of relativity was scoffed at. It took 50 years to finally get the fact that light speed is NOT infinitley fast to be accepted over Aristotelian belief that light took no time to travel. The evidence that disease was caused by germs was strenuously resisted by the biologists and medical establishment of the time. Spontaneous generation of flies and maggots, the phlogiston theories of fire and heat and on and on finally gave way to contrary evidence. Science and technology books become obsolete and outdated faster than any other class of human writings, other than perhaps yesterday's newspaper.
So, I agree with you. It is really sad that such dogged resistance to new truth is part of our human nature.
....I certainly hope that Sony repudiates the technique and the software. Soon....
They won't unless this story appears on the front page of the NY Times or something like that.
....can i sue them?....
Of course you can. Anybody can sue anybody for anything in our corrupt legal system. But you better make sure you have more money to spend on legal expenses than they do. It's all about money, not liberty and justice for all.
....When you put what you think is an audio CD in your CD ROM drive and click on the drive icon,....
On a Mac, when you put an audio CD in the drive, iTunes opens and you get music. If there were some Mac version of a rootkit installer malware on a DRM-ed CD you would get a window asking for a password, but ONLY after clicking on the installer's icon. There is absolutely NO way to install such crap on a Mac by simply clicking on the CD disk icon or merely putting a CD in the drive. Only after giving the admin password would such garbage be able to install. Around here, none of the users know the admin password. I would fault the insecure Windows OS for a) autorunning the software on a CD and b) for allowing users write access to the deepest system internals without the slightest warning or notice. If Windows were more secure, such dastardly exploits would be a lot harder, although not impossible, since stupid users that know the admin password would likely type it in. Still for a commercial company to stoop to such tactics is abominable and probably skirts the edges of the law.
....Yup: exactly as I thought so: all the physicists I've shown your link to laughed hard.....
Exactly, but then a number of scientists who had revolutionary ideas in their time were laughed at by their peers, but in the end they had the last laugh, even though from the grave for some of them. The quantized redshift evidence by Dr. Tift and others and the evidence for the non-constancy of assumed constants call into serious doubt the unimaginably long time periods that are the cornerstone of the evolutionary dogma.
Strongly held beliefs, including scientific ones, do not fall easily even before the onslaught of repeated evidence calling such beliefs into question. It may yet take some time before the mountain of accummulating new evidence finally crushes the evolutionary dogma preached in today's classrooms. I'm not going to hold my breath, but the sooner that time comes, the better it will be for all of science, especially the study of origins.
....Science says nothing about wether god does or does not exist, nor about wether god created life....
In that case science should restrict itself to experiments that explain how things work, but not try to come up with conjectured explanations of origins. In our everyday experience, complex things like airplanes cars and computers or even simple items, such as a pencil etc. don't arise apart from the input of the activity of mind -- human mind in these cases. Why then does science presume to conjecture that the incredibly more complex structures such as the eye or any other living thing came into being without the activity of some mind?
Leave the study of origins to philosphers and theologians since nobody can do an experiment today how any of the complex living things came to be. Even the exact composition of the Earth's atmosphere long before life came to be is pure conjecture. No scientist was around then to do any objective measurements. They make certain assumptions (faith) about such things but nobody really knows. Based on these assumptions and beliefs how things may have been the set up experiments and the draw conclusions. The Creator gave us a brief outline of what he did in Genesis and believing that by faith is at least as good as believing what the scientist's BELIEF is about how things came into existence. To me the Creators account is more credible since he was there and none of the scientists were witnesses. It is possible to reconstruct a car crash from skid marks and other evidence, but nothing beats a witness who saw it happen. If the testimony of the witness contradicts some of the supposed evidence, a choice has to be made, whether to believe the so called evidence or the eye witness. Myself, I'd be much more inclined to believe the witness.
.....my God does not exist.....
That happens to be the first, and perhaps only article of faith of the religion of atheism. You believe that by faith, just as millions whom you consider delusional believe in God. Everybody lives by faith, even atheists. If you ever get in an airplane or a car you do so with the belief that the plane or car will get you to your destination. You don't KNOW that the one YOU are in will make it. Cars and airplanes crash sometimes and their occupants are killed. However, such a faith in planes and cars is not unreasonable to YOU and millions of others, including Christians, step out by faith and take the plane. Some people do not have enough faith in airplanes or elevators and take the train or stairs. This true even though they can see airplanes and likely have friends or relatives that have taken airplane and elevator rides safely.
In the same way, many people have a reasonable faith in God and try to some degree at least live accordingly. To you such faith is obviously unreasonable. Many who profess such faith but are hypocrites and do not live as if they REALLY believe in God. Many unbelievers say: "If God would show Himself to me, then I'd believe in Him." God's way of approach is exactly the oppopsite. If you believe in Him, He'll show Himself to you. He did to me and millions of others whom you scoff at and feel superior to.
In things that we know are clearly human creations, we have no trouble attributing those to a designer or maker. Yet strangely, in the much more complex and intricate design of the world that scientists, and especially biologists study, they attribute these to impersonal statistical chance. They deny that an incredibly complex optical device like the human eye has a designer, yet would never attribute a much simpler digicam to a chance origin.
Science is pretty good at explaining HOW things work by doing experiments. Doing experiments to answer WHEN things happened in the past is not so easy. Answering WHY questions is harder yet.
....suggests it is not possible to create molecules such as insulin, chlorophyll etc from basic atomic elements...
It is obviously possible, but its just that no human scientist has ever done it yet. These things exist, but nobody has EVER made such things from the basic elements of nature. These molecular structures contain hundreds or in some cases thousands of atoms in precise arrangements which have not been duplicated in any laboratory. That is a FACT!
.....Everything done so far is consistent with the hypothesis that decay rate is constant......
_ ID=39733
Yes, and on a cosmological or even human historical time scale, how long have we measuring or even known about such things?
There IS evidence that indicates that some so called constants are anything but constant over LONG periods of time, even only hundreds of years or thousands. You can use this article as a layman's starting point:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE
It leads to links of more detailed and mathematically dense scientific articles you can wade through if you are so inclined. Googling the names of the scientists mentioned is a good way to begin to pursue this.
...Electrons, electromagnetic radiation....
My point was that they are observable today because we have developed technology to extend our senses. For the largest fraction of human existence they were NOT observable, but still existed all along. Just because we have not yet developed a "God meter" doesn't mean we never will nor that God doesn't exist.
......Any chance yo0u would provide a reference for your astonishing claim on the changes in decay rates and other constants?......
_ ID=39733
g ht
When I first came across the idea that certain "fundamental" constants of the Universe might be variable, I discounted that. There are many articles concerning mounting evidence that the speed of light and related "constants" have changed, in some cases greatly over long periods of time. One of the best layman's summaries of this I have found is here:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE
You can use this article as a starting point of your own googling to whatever depth you wish to pursue this.
It leads to numerous other links and here is another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_li
Of all the observations (also mentioned in the Worldnet article) piling up of this change being so, none is more clear and more devastating to current scientific dogma of immense ages of time than Williams Tift's discovery that the red shift is quantized. Below is an excerpt for one of the articles:
It would seem that one person can convince the scientific community if their arguments are good enough. It would be nice if this were the case, but I don't think human nature allows. Francis Bacon was unable to convince the scientistists of his time that the speed of light is finite. John Snow had mediocre success trying to convince the scientists of his time that germs caused disease rather than "miasma." Semmelweiss had practically no success trying to get doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies for pregnant mothers. Or, for a particularly telling example, consider Einstein's theory of relativity. Even TEN YEARS after he had proposed it, including what I think you will agree are rather good reasons, the scientific community refused to accept it. In 1921 when Einstein received the Nobel prize, relativity was not menationed at all! A more modern example is William Tift's work on quantization of red shift. Proposed and supported with evidence in 1977, it has been verified at least 4 times by separate scientists at Oxford, University of Arizona, Canadian National Research Center, and the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh. The last verification was in 2003, yet scientists still refuse to accept it.
In another 50 years, or hopefully sooner the theory of evolution, as presently taught as scientific "truth" will join the long list of discarded notions in the graveyard of dead scientific theories.
....science is only what can be known or observed....
So then before electrons, electromagnetic radiation and so many other things that were unknown and unobservable were supernatural until we discovered how to measure them? We cannot observe God, therefore He doesn't exist until we can invent a God meter. Gravitons are postulated to exist, but we have never observed one yet. However we all experience the force of gravity. In the same way, we all experience life and conscitiousness because it comes from God.
...Why did god do it that way? What was god thinking when the decision was made? ....
Why did God make the mass of the proton exactly 1836 times that of the electron? Why are the fundamental parameters and relationships as we observe them? If these were nor so, then we would not be here to observe them is the short answer. Science is not very good at anwering "why" or "when" questions. Experiments and observations mostly answer "how" questions and then we invent explanations, such as evolution, to try to answer the when questions of origins. We also try to find obervational support for our explanations and that is mostly unsuccessful.
Nobody has ever created a living cell from non-living material, yet even so we have learned a lot about cells and HOW they work. WHEN they first appeared and WHY is beyond experimental verification. When science addresses "how" things work, it is mostly on solid experimental and observational ground. The when and why of things begins to overlap in varying degrees into the realm of philosophy and religion. Maybe only the how of things should be taught in "science" classes and the when and why in philosophy.