..........butterflies, there have been new species that have evolved, eg: the new butterfly species that evolved to live in the london underground for instance. we make new species of bacteria, yeast, fungi, insects, plants, and mice on a daily basis.......
Each of these life forms you mention are DISTINCT. Butterflies are forever butterflies, they never 'evolve' into moths. Coliform bacteria never evolve into coccus varieties. Each variety may become become resistant, but they are still essentially the same organism. Mice are STILL forever mice. Even an HIV virus never mutates to be become a influenza virus. Despite deliberate trying with millions of generations, fruit flies are still only fruit flies. Certain Butterflies may adapt to live in the London Underground, but they are still butterflies. They don't become some other insect. No matter how many famous scientists believe that birds evolved from reptiles or people descended from apes, the fact remains, nobody ever saw it happen or made it happen, even with the application of human intelligence. You can label those ideas evolution and lump them together with the FACT that organisms are very adaptable. Macroevolution is just plain WRONG.
In Copernicus' day, the majority believed the earth is the center of the universe. They were all wrong. Only ONE guy was right and was persecuted by the majority. There have been many wrong ideas about science. Those few who came up with the idea that germs cause disease were ridiculed. I could go on and on how often the majority held the WRONG ideas. Some of these wrong ideas only change one funeral at a time.
(.....it's all in the word 'kind'. by 'kind' you mean 'something that looks noticeably different'.....)
Choose whatever word you want. An amoeba and a paramecium are both "simple" singe celled organisms, but distinct and independent. Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Hitler's "Mein Kampf" share the same alphabet and are printed on paper made from trees. That is about all they have in common. All automobiles share certain commonalities. They all have wheels and some sort of engine, as well as some means to guide their path. Does that mean one car descended from a previous model? No, they share certain elements that car designers have learned work and do the job. Why should these principles NOT also apply to nature?
(.....not to mention that atomic decay is a fundamental property of atoms,......)
Indeed so, but these properties depend on the fundamental properties of space itself. Space is not an empty nothing, but has measurable electric and magnetic properties. Engineers who design antennas and transmission lines deal with these properties every day. As space expands, its properties, as well as everything in space changes and that includes the clock that is used to calibrate ALL dating methods that use some property of the atom. It has nothing to do with transmuting elements, but everything to do with any equation describing matter-energy that has units of time. Since space is now very big, its relative expansion is small, so we don't see much change any more today. There is evidence that since the "Big Bang" some of these "constants" that govern matter-energy and time have changed by at least a factor of 300 million. It is interesting that the equations that describe gravity, unlike those of matter-energy, do not contain any time element or units.
Unlike you, and many like you, I am not personally attacking you or your intellect or those who believe the way you do. Those scientists who see the many shortcomings of the theory of evolutions are often agnostics, rather than religious. One doesn't have to be a believer in order to see that the universe has a high degree of order and to postulate some unknown intelligence behind that order. The amount of personal knowledge of the watchmaker you can gain from even the most careful study of a watch is very limited. Unless that watchmaker has chosen to make himself known, He cannot be known.
.....I'm hard pressed to think of a nastier thing to do to someone then threaten their livelihood........
Do you belong to that growing group of people who truly believe that there is a fundamental right to a job? Is a job not a place where the employee renders a service to an employer and the employer buys that service with a paycheck? If the employer wants to place conditions of employment that an employee CAN meet, to increase productivity, should such an employer not be allowed to place such conditions and hire/keep only those who meet these?
A good employer should be ready to show that these conditions of employment do help both the employer and employee.
.....all they prove is that you've used drugs within the last few days or weeks......
These tests don't even necessarily prove that even. If you eat a couple of poppy seed rolls (they are very tasty if fresh), you'll test positive for narcotics, such as cocaine or heroin. None of the current tests can check for the active substances in these drugs, but they check for companion substances found in drugs, and these substances are also found in the poppy seeds on the rolls. So, if you expect a drug test, DON'T eat poppy seed rolls or cake. Poppy seed cake is popular in Germany and tastes really good. The active drug that makes people high is no longer there in the dry seeds used for these foods.
....All those strange files in Windows Update and Genuine Advantage actually install a tiny webcam......
Actually, my Macbook already has a built in camera. Since Windows run fine on that, except doesn't support the camera yet, maybe that's what those files are for. I'll now have to watch that little light or get some black electrical tape.
....... IT should be used to supporting stuff that isn't ready for.....
But isn't that the fun and interesting part of an IT job. Coming up with clever solutions that others have not already thought of and pre-chewed and partially digested is what makes the life of a real engineer challenging and fun. This includes supporting Windows, possibly in ways and with methods the folks in Redmond have not even dreamed up yet.
.....It's a consumer device and was never meant.....
True, but even so, many executives have bought iPhones and ordered their reluctant IT dept. to support them. When the big boss speaks, most underlings do listen and try to please him/her. So, IT folks out there, you might as well figure on supporting the iPhone, even if Apple doesn't market it for corporate users. The big boss may come in sooner than you figure and DEMAND support for his/her shiny new iPhone.
The writers of The Declaration of Independence plainly state that human rights come form the Creator. You may disagree with that but that is a fact, they did state this.
I did not attack your person. The fact that you did attack me, automatically says you lost the debate.
.....if you were running under a non-privileged account........
That's a big IF. Much Windows software, especially games, doesn't work correctly, or not at all, unless the user is running as an administrator. Is a user has even only ONE such program, they will run as admin, which is of course STILL the default Windows comes with. So does OSX for that matter. However, there isn't a single program for the Mac that will NOT run under a limited user account. Thus it is possible for a family computer to be set up so the kids can play games and download all sorts of stuff and at worst only screw up their own account. Whoever administrates the family Mac can make a special kid's game account for that sort of thing. When the account get messed enough with malware, it is a simple matter to delete the whole account. OS10.5 even comes with a guest account, where that sort of deletion happens automatically, upon logout. Fast user switching also allows a single user to set up one account for keeping sensitive data and another for downloading "experimental" software and quickly switch between these accounts. Apple has included a number of tools to make it hard for malware to do any real damage or get at data useful to thieves.
.....Afterall, God wouldn't violate your rights would he?.......
You are inconsistent in a funny way! First you confidently assert that there is no God. Then you comment on what that non-existent God wouldn't do.
Where do basic human rights come from? Do they come from government or your neighbor? Do they come by raw power and wealth? Does power come from the barrel of a gun, as Mao said? Were the founders of the US correct, when they asserted that all humans are endowed by their CREATOR certain inalienable rights? If they were correct, then no human can GIVE any rights to another, but can only take them away.
When people stop believing in and because of this belief, living by the commands and precepts of this Creator God, they slowly, but surely forfeit their rights given to them by the Creator. They will trade their own responsibility for security and lose their freedom. God doesn't take these rights away, rather the recipients of these freely endowed rights throw them away by indifference. These thrown away rights are then scooped up by the rich and powerful and used against those who did not consider them valuable enough to diligently safeguard them.
The founding fathers believed scripture, which most (including you, evidently) no longer do:
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)
....So, how exactly is revealing a password any more incriminating than say, allowing police into your home.....
If you don't "allow" the police into your home, they'll simply break in. They will break into your computer the same way, if they can. If they can't, that just tough on them. In the UK they don't have the 5th amendment, so they can legally torture the password out of you there.
If encryption should become widespread, then the possession of encryption software or other encryption tools will simply be added to the incredibly long list of 'you may not legally possess or deal with' items. 75% or more of all prisoners today are there directly or indirectly, because of the violation of one of a long list of such laws. Illegal substances and weapons are presently major categories. DMCA makes possession of or dealing in certain kinds of information a crime. When someone robs or burgles to get money for drugs, that burglar or robber, if convicted is also part of this number. Adding encryption to this long list would be only a small addition to this list of such laws.
...Out of curiosity, what are the risks associated with posting a message at Slashdot......
It depends on what you write in your posts. If the FBI, CIA NSA, KGB, Gestapo or anyone else wants to read your screed, they may, may they not? After all you're not posting bomb making instructions or other stuff these guys would care about are you?
Forget about privacy in todays modern world. About the only things that may still be private, are the thoughts in your own head. So far only God and you know what those are. But who knows, maybe future technology could even take those inner thoughts and make them available to others.
....It's possible to study physics without relativity or quantum mechanics. It's possible to study chemistry and skip over oxidation and reduction.....
These are and have been verified by CURRENT and ongoing experiments and observations. We have NEVER seen a reptile change into a bird or any of the other progressions that evolutionists hypothesize. There is a huge difference here.
(....We can study US history and slice out 1895-1902.......)
Whenever it comes to the past, recorded or not, we have to BELIEVE the record. The assumptions we make are usually reasonable and probably valid. However, they STILL are and forever will remain assumptions (beliefs) that cannot be verified. It's a different sort of science, kind of like forensics. We examine the scene of the crime and come to certain conclusions of what might have happened, with a fairly high probability. Until DNA evidence came along, a number of individuals were convicted of a crime based on the best evidence then available. Later, some of these had to be released, based on the better DNA evidence.
I have never said that origins is not a valid field of study. However is is much more subject to interpretation than chemical oxidation and reduction. We can demonstrate these in the present, but nobody can demonstrate and test history in the same way. There ARE people today that assert the holocaust never happened. There is however lots of evidence that it indeed took place. So most people BELIEVE that evidence and it is reasonable to do so. However, nobody can demonstrate its occurrence in the same way as quantum physics can be demonstrated today.
....The evolutionary record of all living things is written in their genes, and we've been learning how to read that record more and more accurately with every passing year.......
The DESIGN record of all living things is written in their genes, and we've been learning how to read that record more and more accurately with every passing year.
Changing just that one word and your sentence still makes just as much sense. There is this thing called the second law of thermodynamics. It also applies to the DNA as a storage medium for genetic information. Since we do not have access to the original code, we cannot know how or what parts have deteriorated. One thing we have theorized from mitochondrial DNA is that humans descended from a single female an "ancestral Eve".
Neither evolution nor ID are needed, nor even desirable to do scientific research to further our current knowledge and try to come up with some solutions to problems we face. In studying origins, both ID and evolution is confined to interpretations and assumptions of records left by people or nature.
(....Welsh ragwort plants, the London Underground mosquito, and the Faeroa Island mouse......)
In all cases, these are still ragworts, mosquitos, mice etc. None of them became some other different kind of life form. Ragworts don't become daisies or some other sort of plant, mosquitoes don't evolve into flies or some other type of insect and mice don't become rats, gophers or some other kind of rodent. No matter how many weird variations of fruit flies scientists come up with in their labs, the FACT is that fruit flies are and always will be only that. Never has one become a house fly or any other kind of fly, certainly not a bee or butterfly. All breeds of dogs are still dogs and will forever remain so.
All changes in biology we have seen or been able to artificially make so far are ALWAYS confined within rather narrow groupings of life forms. Nobody has ever turned a reptile into a bird or a bird into a mammal. Evolutionists try to extend this WAY beyond what we observe today by the hypothesis of vast amounts of time. That may or may be valid. It is however an assumption (belief) that cannot be verified. Therefore THIS aspect of evolution is NOT science, but philosophy and should be treated as such, equally. with other philospohies.
The uniformitarian assumption (belief) here is that the so called "constants" that govern atomic decay (Planck's constant here) have NEVER changed. This may be a valid assumption, but it is a belief nevertheless. We don't know this as a FACT. There are some evidences that the very properties of space governing all matter therein have changed, as space itself has expanded after the initial event generally called "The Big Bang".
(....evolution provides the framework through which we interpret modern biology........)
Interpretation and assumption are just scientific jargon for belief, faith. We believe it is the way it is or was, but we don't know for sure. The ID camp also has a number of Ph.D bona-fide scientists in their camp. They interpret the same evidence differently, but also don't and can't know for sure.
(....case in point: the influenza virus evolved the ability to alter the chemical landscape.....)
An ID believer would simply assert that the virus was designed that way. Let's research to see if we can exploit its design against it so that it cannot so easily evade the immune system. Let's figure out the design of the immune system and try to help it recognize the virus and deactivate its defenses. Neither evolution nor ID lead to the cure, but simply careful study of the virus, as it is today. Neither interpretation really matters. We improve/modify human designs all the time. Why can't or shouldn't we do the same with nature, without regard as to where the design or by whom the design was first implemented? DNA is a code carrier. If there is disagreement, as to who, if anybody, wrote the code it carries, so what? We can still study the code and possibly modify it to our advantage. Why should it really matter scientifically, how, when or where the code came into existence? Neither evolution nor ID need nor should have the slightest influence on current scientific efforts to solve some of the vexing problems humanity faces.
(.....evolution operates at the level of populations, otherwise they are essentially the same thing.....)
Even so, no matter how large a population of a given kind of life form you try to mutate or otherwise change, the essential nature of these doesn't vary much. No matter how many weird variations of fruit flies scientists come up with in their labs, the FACT is that fruit flies are and always will be only that. Never has one become a house fly or any other kind of fly, certainly not a bee or butterfly. No matter how many kinds of dogs breeding comes up with, they are still all dogs. Nobody has ever demonstrated a transition from one kind of organism to a fundamentally different kind.
Interpretation of raw scientific data must be re-examined from time to time. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered the "red shift" of distant starlight. He interpreted (theorized) this to be caused by the familiar doppler effect, applied to light. Modern cosmic observations are difficult to explain in the light of this interpretation. All sorts of never directly observed or observable constructs, such as dark matter/enery, black holes, Oort clouds and other exotica are invented to try to make current data fit the "accepted" theories. So far, very few cosmologists have put forth the audacious idea to re-examine and possible throw out a long held, foundational theory (belief, interpretation). Is that really any different from what we observe in the realm of religion?
.......Evolution explains how life changed over time.........
I never mention the origin of life itself. We don't know anything about how life was eons ago. We only know how it changes today (not very much). Bacteria resistant to antibiotics are still only bacteria. They don't change into some other organism. Evolutionists assume (believe) that such changes can compound and add up over time, but we have never seen this actually happen TODAY. We are creatures of the present. Anything about the distant past or future is assumed, believed, conjectured. We really don't KNOW and there are no experiments we can do to find out. We can choose to BELIEVE the record of history and/or any other records, such as fossils. Nobody has ever made a fossil today, at least not by any conceivable process that could occur by the laws of nature. We know fossils exist, but cannot be sure of what they are really telling us or how they came to be. We may have certain beliefs about fossils. Such beliefs may even sound reasonable, but they are, and will forever only be beliefs, not known experimentally ascertained, repeatable facts. REAL science consists of repeatable certain facts, not beliefs how things might have been eons ago or may be in the far future.
BTW, whenever a person resorts to calling someone names and stoops to using profanity, it is a clear sign that they have lost the debate.
.....evolution is something that happens (present tense).....
The word 'Evolution' is being applied in various ways today. When a bacterium becomes resistant or even immune to an antibiotic, that process is often called evolution. I prefer to call that adaptation. This is entirely separate from and different from attempts to the answer the question: Where and how did bacteria and everything else originate?
The word evolution is applied to the supposed origins, as well as to the present adaptation of living things and other changes we see happening all around us. As long as the concept of evolution is ONLY applied in the sense of present change, it is verifiable science. What happened in the distant past is not verifiable science but is based on belief. Science cannot test what happened in the distant past. All humans are totally confined to the present. Even if we have a written historical record, we have to BELIEVE that record, or not. We can believe that the fossil record tells us certain things, but we cannot know and prove this in the same way we can repeatedly test and know Ohm's law of electricity any time we want.
RELIGION 1a : the state of a religious *a nun in her 20th year of religion* b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Notice the fourth part.
OBSESSION 1 : a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation *an obsession with profits* 2 : something that causes an obsession
There is some overlap, evidently, but the two are different also.
.....Now I'm curious, what do you think evolution is?.......
Evolution is the attempt to answer the age old question: How did we and everything else get here. Evolution attempts to deal with the question of origins.
(.....Because evolution is very much in effect today......)
Only in the sense of adaptation and change. What is happening today tells us nothing about how things were ages ago, at least not without making the unwarranted assumption that conditions were the same as or even similar to what is today. Assumption is the scientific code word for belief. There is no experiment anyone can do to determine how dinosaurs became extinct. All we know for sure, is that they once existed, but don't run all over the planet any more.
(.....why we need a new flu shot every year to stay inoculated......)
Why can we not just study the virus, the immune system and learn how it all works TODAY? We don't have to and really can't know how these things worked eons ago, or how they might have come into existence way back then.
(.....Since when were these two things mutually exclusive? (And since when was ID a scientific theory?).....)
Both of these involve guesswork and assumptions, beliefs which cannot be checked out until someone invents a time machine and scientifically checks out the underlying assumptions of the evolution approach or God comes down here and tells us how He did it. Science has to do with what we can observe NOW, measure today, not what or how something may have happened ages ago. Science need not and cannot care how things came to be in the distant past, but can and does help us build a better life HERE and NOW. Religion and philosophy have great value and are the proper forums wherein to ponder the distant past and far future.
Neither did evolution. All of these were created by INTELLIGENT human beings by processes of thought arising in a mind. The mind is the software running in the hardware of the brain. Just as in a computer, the hardware and software were created by a creator, a super programmer. No computer ever "evolved" without the input of human intelligence.
The brain also operates the I/O system of eyes, ears, hands, feet, ie the whole body. Naturally, if you damage the hardware with a lobotomy, the software won't run correctly. Take the memory chips out of your computer sometime and see how well it works.
Evolution is guesswork, trying to answer the question: Where did I and everything else originate? Who cares? It is not necessary in the slightest, in order to create and build all things you mentioned. Why do so many insist that the natural world, similar to the things we make, was not also conceived by and executed by a great Mind, which we, at this time at least, do not have direct access to?
The total, universality of religion, in the past and still today, is powerful evidence for Himself, which the Creator has programed into our root genetic structure, the kernel of the human OS. This strange yearning toward the source of our existence manifests itself in religion and in belief in things beyond ourselves. Religion and a desire for God is like a root-kit the maker of the OS programed deep into the innards of our human nature. In times of extreme stress it executes and makes us cry out to this otherwise unknown God. This is what made otherwise irreligious people cry out to God in foxholes and under the hail of bombs in wartime. Right now, you are able to repress the execution of that root-kit, but there is a good chance you will not be able to, if the pressure on you gets strong enough.
....you don't know the definition of religion......
The definition you cite is only partial. Anything that becomes supremely important can become an object of worship. Money and material possessions become idols many worship and serve. Power over others and fame are not far behind. A supernatural aspect is not a necessary ingredient to religion. Atheists may not believe in the supernatural aspect of religion, but nevertheless have some overriding, consuming passion which qualifies as a religion. For some, evolution can also rise to religious fervor. Users of Apple or computers and less so Linux fans are often accused of religious fervor. For some it is sports. In short, any consuming passion can assume religious overtones.
....Science will rise again exactly the same. But no religion will......
I'm not so sure about that. Religion seems to be built into most humans.
Why is it not possible to study science without evolution? Would the laws of physics or biology be different if evolution had never been invented? Would the mysteries of the cosmos or DNA be any less challenging if evolution at no point entered in? Would bacteria multiply differently and sometimes make us sick as often or less so, if we did not think about how they came to be supposedly, millions of years ago?
Why can't we teach science how it works TODAY without getting into arguments how things came to be the way they are. Maybe we can divorce speculations about origins and the past and concentrate on figuring out how things work today, regardless how one or other group thinks they came to be that way? Let those who wish to argue the merits of evolution or ID get together outside of the science classroom and move over to the philosophy department. How about a law that mandates the separation of science and evolution, similar to the separation of church and state.
I look at any files worth keeping and copy these to another modern HD. Since HD space is cheap these days, I have several complete DOS drive images on file. After that I let the computer do a multi-pass full data scramble erasure. This can take quite a while on big drives.
After the magnets are extracted, the left over pieces go to a metal recycler. The cases are usually made from many beer cans worth of aluminum.
....The fact that the views of science change when new evidence arises confirms that it is not belief-based.......
What I pointed out, that in the microsecond of time since 1895, as far as climate goes, so called scientists have flip-flopped on the interpretation of the evidence several times. To me, as to anyone with common sense, rather than fancy garbage-in-garbage-out computer models, it appears that climate oscillates over time. We have some warming and them some cooling cycles over time.
What's bad is that some, mostly not the scientists themselves, but others with a social agenda, are forcing extensive and very costly social changes based on their dubious interpretation of the evidence. In 40-50 years, another cooling cycle will begin and TIME Magazine will once again reprint a headline similar to their December 1973 issue. Another Gore may then make another film telling us that we better bundle up for the next ice age.
(.....I have no idea what you were trying to say about "MIND".....)
Besides matter and energy, which are governed by certain forces, there is a third factor in the universe, which is outside of the scope of these. It is the realm of thought, creativity, invention, ideas. How much does an idea weigh? What is the speed of thought? We have an extensive body of law, dealing with INTELLECTUAL property, because we understand that a work of art is separate and apart from the physical medium that embodies it. The DNA is the medium, but the code recorded thereon is an expression of an unknown intellect, the same way that the code on a computer disk is the work of a known human programmer. A mind is the device which generates intellect, which produces intellectual property. The brain is akin to the hardware running the software of the mind.
Scientists perceive that there are certain laws by which things work and repeatably test these laws. They see a certain order and structure upon which repeatable experiments are done. That is science. When it comes to interpreting the origins, destiny, meaning and purpose of that order, they are all on the same level as theologians.
(....We can make an educated guess...)
That's exactly my point. Statements of scientists or anybody else for that matter, about the past or future, or purpose and meaning, are guesswork, belief, faith, just like religion is. We humans are really creatures of the present. The past must be believed from records and the future inferred from trends we observe. Our lives our based much more on what we believe than what we know for sure.
Nothing goes out of existence in this universe, only changes form. We all, including you, are indeed infected with a virus. The Bible calls it SIN and outlines the steps God has taken to eradicate it.
I hope, that before you die, you WILL meet the REAL Jesus, rather than some caricature you may have in your mind.
God knows who you are and I'll add you to my prayer list.
....and his followers went into his tomb and stole the body in order to impress the gullible......
It's obvious that you never read the resurrection accounts carefully. After Jesus was murdered His disciples scattered and were rightfully scared to show their faces. They were holed up behind locked doors. There was also a Roman guard placed at the tomb to prevent anyone from the outside removing the body. Until Jesus personally appeared to them, the disciples were a disheartened, scared bunch of men. At every meeting, after the resurrection, Jesus ate some food with them, to show that He was not some immaterial hallucination. He even made them a breakfast barbeque.
The fact remains that Jesus has had more impact on this planet than any other religious founder. The fact that He was born, not the exact date is what matters.
(....being omnipotent, he could have made a world where humans have free will, but there is no evil.......)
A lot of philosophers have wrestled with the question of why evil. I think that first evil must be defined. To me it's like darkness, which is simply where there is no light. Evil is a place where there is nothing good, or leave out an "o" there there is no God. A being who can truly choose, must be able to choose light or darkness. Right now, we live in a world where good and evil are inextricably intertwined. Everything has the light and dark side, the ying and yang, as some home put it.
Someday, these two will be separated. Those who now choose light, will remain in light and those who choose darkness now will remain there. We ALL have chosen darkness, in the sense that we want OUR will to be supreme, rather than submitting FREELY to the will of God. God could have left us all in the darkness we chose for ourselves. Being in darkness and death so long, we have gotten used to it. We now hate the light, and flee, similar to the creatures from an overturned rock scurry back into darkness. Jesus said He is the Light of the World.
God made a way in Jesus for anyone WILLING to surrender that free will to the supreme will of God. We are not ABLE to do this, apart from His grace, anymore than the creatures under the rock are able to be in the light. It takes a change in us, as it would in that crawly creature, that only the Creator can make.
There can be only one supreme will. Whenever there are two or more wills, the others must submit or else there is the likelihood of conflict and no possibility of love. We see this in marriage. One partner must submit in love to the other. If neither gives, then there is separation, divorce. Even though God has made us, He doesn't force us to love, trust and obey Him, but merely tells us what the consequences would be, if we choose our own will -- namely death, separation from Him, the source of life.
I think that if God would allow you to spend just a day in hell, the place where there is no good whatsoever, and then come back here, you might revise all your thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
..........butterflies, there have been new species that have evolved, eg: the new butterfly species that evolved to live in the london underground for instance. we make new species of bacteria, yeast, fungi, insects, plants, and mice on a daily basis .......
Each of these life forms you mention are DISTINCT. Butterflies are forever butterflies, they never 'evolve' into moths. Coliform bacteria never evolve into coccus varieties. Each variety may become become resistant, but they are still essentially the same organism. Mice are STILL forever mice. Even an HIV virus never mutates to be become a influenza virus. Despite deliberate trying with millions of generations, fruit flies are still only fruit flies. Certain Butterflies may adapt to live in the London Underground, but they are still butterflies. They don't become some other insect. No matter how many famous scientists believe that birds evolved from reptiles or people descended from apes, the fact remains, nobody ever saw it happen or made it happen, even with the application of human intelligence. You can label those ideas evolution and lump them together with the FACT that organisms are very adaptable. Macroevolution is just plain WRONG.
In Copernicus' day, the majority believed the earth is the center of the universe. They were all wrong. Only ONE guy was right and was persecuted by the majority. There have been many wrong ideas about science. Those few who came up with the idea that germs cause disease were ridiculed. I could go on and on how often the majority held the WRONG ideas. Some of these wrong ideas only change one funeral at a time.
(.....it's all in the word 'kind'. by 'kind' you mean 'something that looks noticeably different'.....)
Choose whatever word you want. An amoeba and a paramecium are both "simple" singe celled organisms, but distinct and independent. Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Hitler's "Mein Kampf" share the same alphabet and are printed on paper made from trees. That is about all they have in common. All automobiles share certain commonalities. They all have wheels and some sort of engine, as well as some means to guide their path. Does that mean one car descended from a previous model? No, they share certain elements that car designers have learned work and do the job. Why should these principles NOT also apply to nature?
(.....not to mention that atomic decay is a fundamental property of atoms,......)
Indeed so, but these properties depend on the fundamental properties of space itself. Space is not an empty nothing, but has measurable electric and magnetic properties. Engineers who design antennas and transmission lines deal with these properties every day. As space expands, its properties, as well as everything in space changes and that includes the clock that is used to calibrate ALL dating methods that use some property of the atom. It has nothing to do with transmuting elements, but everything to do with any equation describing matter-energy that has units of time. Since space is now very big, its relative expansion is small, so we don't see much change any more today. There is evidence that since the "Big Bang" some of these "constants" that govern matter-energy and time have changed by at least a factor of 300 million. It is interesting that the equations that describe gravity, unlike those of matter-energy, do not contain any time element or units.
Unlike you, and many like you, I am not personally attacking you or your intellect or those who believe the way you do. Those scientists who see the many shortcomings of the theory of evolutions are often agnostics, rather than religious. One doesn't have to be a believer in order to see that the universe has a high degree of order and to postulate some unknown intelligence behind that order. The amount of personal knowledge of the watchmaker you can gain from even the most careful study of a watch is very limited. Unless that watchmaker has chosen to make himself known, He cannot be known.
.....I'm hard pressed to think of a nastier thing to do to someone then threaten their livelihood........
Do you belong to that growing group of people who truly believe that there is a fundamental right to a job? Is a job not a place where the employee renders a service to an employer and the employer buys that service with a paycheck? If the employer wants to place conditions of employment that an employee CAN meet, to increase productivity, should such an employer not be allowed to place such conditions and hire/keep only those who meet these?
A good employer should be ready to show that these conditions of employment do help both the employer and employee.
.....all they prove is that you've used drugs within the last few days or weeks......
These tests don't even necessarily prove that even. If you eat a couple of poppy seed rolls (they are very tasty if fresh), you'll test positive for narcotics, such as cocaine or heroin. None of the current tests can check for the active substances in these drugs, but they check for companion substances found in drugs, and these substances are also found in the poppy seeds on the rolls. So, if you expect a drug test, DON'T eat poppy seed rolls or cake. Poppy seed cake is popular in Germany and tastes really good. The active drug that makes people high is no longer there in the dry seeds used for these foods.
....All those strange files in Windows Update and Genuine Advantage actually install a tiny webcam ......
Actually, my Macbook already has a built in camera. Since Windows run fine on that, except doesn't support the camera yet, maybe that's what those files are for. I'll now have to watch that little light or get some black electrical tape.
....... IT should be used to supporting stuff that isn't ready for .....
But isn't that the fun and interesting part of an IT job. Coming up with clever solutions that others have not already thought of and pre-chewed and partially digested is what makes the life of a real engineer challenging and fun. This includes supporting Windows, possibly in ways and with methods the folks in Redmond have not even dreamed up yet.
.....It's a consumer device and was never meant.....
True, but even so, many executives have bought iPhones and ordered their reluctant IT dept. to support them. When the big boss speaks, most underlings do listen and try to please him/her. So, IT folks out there, you might as well figure on supporting the iPhone, even if Apple doesn't market it for corporate users. The big boss may come in sooner than you figure and DEMAND support for his/her shiny new iPhone.
....As far as where rights came from.. .....
The writers of The Declaration of Independence plainly state that human rights come form the Creator. You may disagree with that but that is a fact, they did state this.
I did not attack your person. The fact that you did attack me, automatically says you lost the debate.
.....if you were running under a non-privileged account........
That's a big IF. Much Windows software, especially games, doesn't work correctly, or not at all, unless the user is running as an administrator. Is a user has even only ONE such program, they will run as admin, which is of course STILL the default Windows comes with. So does OSX for that matter. However, there isn't a single program for the Mac that will NOT run under a limited user account. Thus it is possible for a family computer to be set up so the kids can play games and download all sorts of stuff and at worst only screw up their own account. Whoever administrates the family Mac can make a special kid's game account for that sort of thing. When the account get messed enough with malware, it is a simple matter to delete the whole account. OS10.5 even comes with a guest account, where that sort of deletion happens automatically, upon logout. Fast user switching also allows a single user to set up one account for keeping sensitive data and another for downloading "experimental" software and quickly switch between these accounts. Apple has included a number of tools to make it hard for malware to do any real damage or get at data useful to thieves.
.....Afterall, God wouldn't violate your rights would he?.......
You are inconsistent in a funny way! First you confidently assert that there is no God. Then you comment on what that non-existent God wouldn't do.
Where do basic human rights come from? Do they come from government or your neighbor? Do they come by raw power and wealth? Does power come from the barrel of a gun, as Mao said? Were the founders of the US correct, when they asserted that all humans are endowed by their CREATOR certain inalienable rights? If they were correct, then no human can GIVE any rights to another, but can only take them away.
When people stop believing in and because of this belief, living by the commands and precepts of this Creator God, they slowly, but surely forfeit their rights given to them by the Creator. They will trade their own responsibility for security and lose their freedom. God doesn't take these rights away, rather the recipients of these freely endowed rights throw them away by indifference. These thrown away rights are then scooped up by the rich and powerful and used against those who did not consider them valuable enough to diligently safeguard them.
The founding fathers believed scripture, which most (including you, evidently) no longer do:
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)
....So, how exactly is revealing a password any more incriminating than say, allowing police into your home.....
If you don't "allow" the police into your home, they'll simply break in. They will break into your computer the same way, if they can. If they can't, that just tough on them. In the UK they don't have the 5th amendment, so they can legally torture the password out of you there.
If encryption should become widespread, then the possession of encryption software or other encryption tools will simply be added to the incredibly long list of 'you may not legally possess or deal with' items. 75% or more of all prisoners today are there directly or indirectly, because of the violation of one of a long list of such laws. Illegal substances and weapons are presently major categories. DMCA makes possession of or dealing in certain kinds of information a crime. When someone robs or burgles to get money for drugs, that burglar or robber, if convicted is also part of this number. Adding encryption to this long list would be only a small addition to this list of such laws.
...Out of curiosity, what are the risks associated with posting a message at Slashdot......
It depends on what you write in your posts. If the FBI, CIA NSA, KGB, Gestapo or anyone else wants to read your screed, they may, may they not? After all you're not posting bomb making instructions or other stuff these guys would care about are you?
Forget about privacy in todays modern world. About the only things that may still be private, are the thoughts in your own head. So far only God and you know what those are. But who knows, maybe future technology could even take those inner thoughts and make them available to others.
....It's possible to study physics without relativity or quantum mechanics. It's possible to study chemistry and skip over oxidation and reduction.....
.......)
These are and have been verified by CURRENT and ongoing experiments and observations. We have NEVER seen a reptile change into a bird or any of the other progressions that evolutionists hypothesize. There is a huge difference here.
(....We can study US history and slice out 1895-1902
Whenever it comes to the past, recorded or not, we have to BELIEVE the record. The assumptions we make are usually reasonable and probably valid. However, they STILL are and forever will remain assumptions (beliefs) that cannot be verified. It's a different sort of science, kind of like forensics. We examine the scene of the crime and come to certain conclusions of what might have happened, with a fairly high probability. Until DNA evidence came along, a number of individuals were convicted of a crime based on the best evidence then available. Later, some of these had to be released, based on the better DNA evidence.
I have never said that origins is not a valid field of study. However is is much more subject to interpretation than chemical oxidation and reduction. We can demonstrate these in the present, but nobody can demonstrate and test history in the same way. There ARE people today that assert the holocaust never happened. There is however lots of evidence that it indeed took place. So most people BELIEVE that evidence and it is reasonable to do so. However, nobody can demonstrate its occurrence in the same way as quantum physics can be demonstrated today.
....The evolutionary record of all living things is written in their genes, and we've been learning how to read that record more and more accurately with every passing year.......
......)
The DESIGN record of all living things is written in their genes, and we've been learning how to read that record more and more accurately with every passing year.
Changing just that one word and your sentence still makes just as much sense. There is this thing called the second law of thermodynamics. It also applies to the DNA as a storage medium for genetic information. Since we do not have access to the original code, we cannot know how or what parts have deteriorated. One thing we have theorized from mitochondrial DNA is that humans descended from a single female an "ancestral Eve".
Neither evolution nor ID are needed, nor even desirable to do scientific research to further our current knowledge and try to come up with some solutions to problems we face. In studying origins, both ID and evolution is confined to interpretations and assumptions of records left by people or nature.
(....Welsh ragwort plants, the London Underground mosquito, and the Faeroa Island mouse
In all cases, these are still ragworts, mosquitos, mice etc. None of them became some other different kind of life form. Ragworts don't become daisies or some other sort of plant, mosquitoes don't evolve into flies or some other type of insect and mice don't become rats, gophers or some other kind of rodent. No matter how many weird variations of fruit flies scientists come up with in their labs, the FACT is that fruit flies are and always will be only that. Never has one become a house fly or any other kind of fly, certainly not a bee or butterfly. All breeds of dogs are still dogs and will forever remain so.
All changes in biology we have seen or been able to artificially make so far are ALWAYS confined within rather narrow groupings of life forms. Nobody has ever turned a reptile into a bird or a bird into a mammal. Evolutionists try to extend this WAY beyond what we observe today by the hypothesis of vast amounts of time. That may or may be valid. It is however an assumption (belief) that cannot be verified. Therefore THIS aspect of evolution is NOT science, but philosophy and should be treated as such, equally. with other philospohies.
.....the steady atomic decay of C14 to C13 .......
.....)
The uniformitarian assumption (belief) here is that the so called "constants" that govern atomic decay (Planck's constant here) have NEVER changed. This may be a valid assumption, but it is a belief nevertheless. We don't know this as a FACT. There are some evidences that the very properties of space governing all matter therein have changed, as space itself has expanded after the initial event generally called "The Big Bang".
(....evolution provides the framework through which we interpret modern biology........)
Interpretation and assumption are just scientific jargon for belief, faith. We believe it is the way it is or was, but we don't know for sure. The ID camp also has a number of Ph.D bona-fide scientists in their camp. They interpret the same evidence differently, but also don't and can't know for sure.
(....case in point: the influenza virus evolved the ability to alter the chemical landscape
An ID believer would simply assert that the virus was designed that way. Let's research to see if we can exploit its design against it so that it cannot so easily evade the immune system. Let's figure out the design of the immune system and try to help it recognize the virus and deactivate its defenses. Neither evolution nor ID lead to the cure, but simply careful study of the virus, as it is today. Neither interpretation really matters. We improve/modify human designs all the time. Why can't or shouldn't we do the same with nature, without regard as to where the design or by whom the design was first implemented? DNA is a code carrier. If there is disagreement, as to who, if anybody, wrote the code it carries, so what? We can still study the code and possibly modify it to our advantage. Why should it really matter scientifically, how, when or where the code came into existence? Neither evolution nor ID need nor should have the slightest influence on current scientific efforts to solve some of the vexing problems humanity faces.
(.....evolution operates at the level of populations, otherwise they are essentially the same thing.....)
Even so, no matter how large a population of a given kind of life form you try to mutate or otherwise change, the essential nature of these doesn't vary much. No matter how many weird variations of fruit flies scientists come up with in their labs, the FACT is that fruit flies are and always will be only that. Never has one become a house fly or any other kind of fly, certainly not a bee or butterfly. No matter how many kinds of dogs breeding comes up with, they are still all dogs. Nobody has ever demonstrated a transition from one kind of organism to a fundamentally different kind.
Interpretation of raw scientific data must be re-examined from time to time. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered the "red shift" of distant starlight. He interpreted (theorized) this to be caused by the familiar doppler effect, applied to light. Modern cosmic observations are difficult to explain in the light of this interpretation. All sorts of never directly observed or observable constructs, such as dark matter/enery, black holes, Oort clouds and other exotica are invented to try to make current data fit the "accepted" theories. So far, very few cosmologists have put forth the audacious idea to re-examine and possible throw out a long held, foundational theory (belief, interpretation). Is that really any different from what we observe in the realm of religion?
.......Evolution explains how life changed over time.........
I never mention the origin of life itself. We don't know anything about how life was eons ago. We only know how it changes today (not very much). Bacteria resistant to antibiotics are still only bacteria. They don't change into some other organism. Evolutionists assume (believe) that such changes can compound and add up over time, but we have never seen this actually happen TODAY. We are creatures of the present. Anything about the distant past or future is assumed, believed, conjectured. We really don't KNOW and there are no experiments we can do to find out. We can choose to BELIEVE the record of history and/or any other records, such as fossils. Nobody has ever made a fossil today, at least not by any conceivable process that could occur by the laws of nature. We know fossils exist, but cannot be sure of what they are really telling us or how they came to be. We may have certain beliefs about fossils. Such beliefs may even sound reasonable, but they are, and will forever only be beliefs, not known experimentally ascertained, repeatable facts. REAL science consists of repeatable certain facts, not beliefs how things might have been eons ago or may be in the far future.
BTW, whenever a person resorts to calling someone names and stoops to using profanity, it is a clear sign that they have lost the debate.
.....evolution is something that happens (present tense) .....
The word 'Evolution' is being applied in various ways today. When a bacterium becomes resistant or even immune to an antibiotic, that process is often called evolution. I prefer to call that adaptation. This is entirely separate from and different from attempts to the answer the question: Where and how did bacteria and everything else originate?
The word evolution is applied to the supposed origins, as well as to the present adaptation of living things and other changes we see happening all around us. As long as the concept of evolution is ONLY applied in the sense of present change, it is verifiable science. What happened in the distant past is not verifiable science but is based on belief. Science cannot test what happened in the distant past. All humans are totally confined to the present. Even if we have a written historical record, we have to BELIEVE that record, or not. We can believe that the fossil record tells us certain things, but we cannot know and prove this in the same way we can repeatedly test and know Ohm's law of electricity any time we want.
....Fixed that for you.....
Here is how my dictionary (Webster) defines it:
RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious *a nun in her 20th year of religion* b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Notice the fourth part.
OBSESSION
1 : a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation *an obsession with profits*
2 : something that causes an obsession
There is some overlap, evidently, but the two are different also.
.....Now I'm curious, what do you think evolution is?.......
Evolution is the attempt to answer the age old question: How did we and everything else get here. Evolution attempts to deal with the question of origins.
(.....Because evolution is very much in effect today......)
Only in the sense of adaptation and change. What is happening today tells us nothing about how things were ages ago, at least not without making the unwarranted assumption that conditions were the same as or even similar to what is today. Assumption is the scientific code word for belief. There is no experiment anyone can do to determine how dinosaurs became extinct. All we know for sure, is that they once existed, but don't run all over the planet any more.
(.....why we need a new flu shot every year to stay inoculated......)
Why can we not just study the virus, the immune system and learn how it all works TODAY? We don't have to and really can't know how these things worked eons ago, or how they might have come into existence way back then.
(.....Since when were these two things mutually exclusive? (And since when was ID a scientific theory?).....)
Both of these involve guesswork and assumptions, beliefs which cannot be checked out until someone invents a time machine and scientifically checks out the underlying assumptions of the evolution approach or God comes down here and tells us how He did it. Science has to do with what we can observe NOW, measure today, not what or how something may have happened ages ago. Science need not and cannot care how things came to be in the distant past, but can and does help us build a better life HERE and NOW. Religion and philosophy have great value and are the proper forums wherein to ponder the distant past and far future.
.....Guesswork didn't build radios, televisions, planes, .......
Neither did evolution. All of these were created by INTELLIGENT human beings by processes of thought arising in a mind. The mind is the software running in the hardware of the brain. Just as in a computer, the hardware and software were created by a creator, a super programmer. No computer ever "evolved" without the input of human intelligence.
The brain also operates the I/O system of eyes, ears, hands, feet, ie the whole body. Naturally, if you damage the hardware with a lobotomy, the software won't run correctly. Take the memory chips out of your computer sometime and see how well it works.
Evolution is guesswork, trying to answer the question: Where did I and everything else originate? Who cares? It is not necessary in the slightest, in order to create and build all things you mentioned. Why do so many insist that the natural world, similar to the things we make, was not also conceived by and executed by a great Mind, which we, at this time at least, do not have direct access to?
The total, universality of religion, in the past and still today, is powerful evidence for Himself, which the Creator has programed into our root genetic structure, the kernel of the human OS. This strange yearning toward the source of our existence manifests itself in religion and in belief in things beyond ourselves. Religion and a desire for God is like a root-kit the maker of the OS programed deep into the innards of our human nature. In times of extreme stress it executes and makes us cry out to this otherwise unknown God. This is what made otherwise irreligious people cry out to God in foxholes and under the hail of bombs in wartime. Right now, you are able to repress the execution of that root-kit, but there is a good chance you will not be able to, if the pressure on you gets strong enough.
....you don't know the definition of religion......
The definition you cite is only partial. Anything that becomes supremely important can become an object of worship. Money and material possessions become idols many worship and serve. Power over others and fame are not far behind. A supernatural aspect is not a necessary ingredient to religion. Atheists may not believe in the supernatural aspect of religion, but nevertheless have some overriding, consuming passion which qualifies as a religion. For some, evolution can also rise to religious fervor. Users of Apple or computers and less so Linux fans are often accused of religious fervor. For some it is sports. In short, any consuming passion can assume religious overtones.
....Science will rise again exactly the same. But no religion will......
I'm not so sure about that. Religion seems to be built into most humans.
Why is it not possible to study science without evolution? Would the laws of physics or biology be different if evolution had never been invented? Would the mysteries of the cosmos or DNA be any less challenging if evolution at no point entered in? Would bacteria multiply differently and sometimes make us sick as often or less so, if we did not think about how they came to be supposedly, millions of years ago?
Why can't we teach science how it works TODAY without getting into arguments how things came to be the way they are. Maybe we can divorce speculations about origins and the past and concentrate on figuring out how things work today, regardless how one or other group thinks they came to be that way? Let those who wish to argue the merits of evolution or ID get together outside of the science classroom and move over to the philosophy department. How about a law that mandates the separation of science and evolution, similar to the separation of church and state.
....Of course, the hard part is doing something productive with them...
I take the magnets out and use the best ones on our refrigerator. I give the rest to friends for that purpose.
Before doing this I connect them to a drive dock, specifically this one:
http://www.wiebetech.com/products/ComboDock.php
I look at any files worth keeping and copy these to another modern HD. Since HD space is cheap these days, I have several complete DOS drive images on file. After that I let the computer do a multi-pass full data scramble erasure. This can take quite a while on big drives.
After the magnets are extracted, the left over pieces go to a metal recycler. The cases are usually made from many beer cans worth of aluminum.
....The fact that the views of science change when new evidence arises confirms that it is not belief-based.......
What I pointed out, that in the microsecond of time since 1895, as far as climate goes, so called scientists have flip-flopped on the interpretation of the evidence several times. To me, as to anyone with common sense, rather than fancy garbage-in-garbage-out computer models, it appears that climate oscillates over time. We have some warming and them some cooling cycles over time.
What's bad is that some, mostly not the scientists themselves, but others with a social agenda, are forcing extensive and very costly social changes based on their dubious interpretation of the evidence. In 40-50 years, another cooling cycle will begin and TIME Magazine will once again reprint a headline similar to their December 1973 issue. Another Gore may then make another film telling us that we better bundle up for the next ice age.
(.....I have no idea what you were trying to say about "MIND".....)
Besides matter and energy, which are governed by certain forces, there is a third factor in the universe, which is outside of the scope of these. It is the realm of thought, creativity, invention, ideas. How much does an idea weigh? What is the speed of thought? We have an extensive body of law, dealing with INTELLECTUAL property, because we understand that a work of art is separate and apart from the physical medium that embodies it. The DNA is the medium, but the code recorded thereon is an expression of an unknown intellect, the same way that the code on a computer disk is the work of a known human programmer. A mind is the device which generates intellect, which produces intellectual property. The brain is akin to the hardware running the software of the mind.
Scientists perceive that there are certain laws by which things work and repeatably test these laws. They see a certain order and structure upon which repeatable experiments are done. That is science. When it comes to interpreting the origins, destiny, meaning and purpose of that order, they are all on the same level as theologians.
(....We can make an educated guess...)
That's exactly my point. Statements of scientists or anybody else for that matter, about the past or future, or purpose and meaning, are guesswork, belief, faith, just like religion is. We humans are really creatures of the present. The past must be believed from records and the future inferred from trends we observe. Our lives our based much more on what we believe than what we know for sure.
....I know you must think I'm full of shit.....
No, most definitely not so.
Nothing goes out of existence in this universe, only changes form. We all, including you, are indeed infected with a virus. The Bible calls it SIN and outlines the steps God has taken to eradicate it.
I hope, that before you die, you WILL meet the REAL Jesus, rather than some caricature you may have in your mind.
God knows who you are and I'll add you to my prayer list.
Thanks for the discussion.
Armin
....and his followers went into his tomb and stole the body in order to impress the gullible......
It's obvious that you never read the resurrection accounts carefully. After Jesus was murdered His disciples scattered and were rightfully scared to show their faces. They were holed up behind locked doors. There was also a Roman guard placed at the tomb to prevent anyone from the outside removing the body. Until Jesus personally appeared to them, the disciples were a disheartened, scared bunch of men. At every meeting, after the resurrection, Jesus ate some food with them, to show that He was not some immaterial hallucination. He even made them a breakfast barbeque.
The fact remains that Jesus has had more impact on this planet than any other religious founder. The fact that He was born, not the exact date is what matters.
(....being omnipotent, he could have made a world where humans have free will, but there is no evil.......)
A lot of philosophers have wrestled with the question of why evil. I think that first evil must be defined. To me it's like darkness, which is simply where there is no light. Evil is a place where there is nothing good, or leave out an "o" there there is no God. A being who can truly choose, must be able to choose light or darkness. Right now, we live in a world where good and evil are inextricably intertwined. Everything has the light and dark side, the ying and yang, as some home put it.
Someday, these two will be separated. Those who now choose light, will remain in light and those who choose darkness now will remain there. We ALL have chosen darkness, in the sense that we want OUR will to be supreme, rather than submitting FREELY to the will of God. God could have left us all in the darkness we chose for ourselves. Being in darkness and death so long, we have gotten used to it. We now hate the light, and flee, similar to the creatures from an overturned rock scurry back into darkness. Jesus said He is the Light of the World.
God made a way in Jesus for anyone WILLING to surrender that free will to the supreme will of God. We are not ABLE to do this, apart from His grace, anymore than the creatures under the rock are able to be in the light. It takes a change in us, as it would in that crawly creature, that only the Creator can make.
There can be only one supreme will. Whenever there are two or more wills, the others must submit or else there is the likelihood of conflict and no possibility of love. We see this in marriage. One partner must submit in love to the other. If neither gives, then there is separation, divorce. Even though God has made us, He doesn't force us to love, trust and obey Him, but merely tells us what the consequences would be, if we choose our own will -- namely death, separation from Him, the source of life.
I think that if God would allow you to spend just a day in hell, the place where there is no good whatsoever, and then come back here, you might revise all your thinking.