Complete bullshit. Decrease in birth rates due to a homosexual percentage of the general population is linear, or nearly so. True population control "devices", such as plagues, are effective because they are caused and/or sustained by the features of a large population, such as waste management problems, etc.
>If two black holes collide, you get one black hole and a bunch of gravitational waves. Assuming they do not collide directly. The gravitational waves are created by the black holes orbiting one another, the orbit shrinking and speeding up until they coalesce.
Yes, the concept of a god is offensive to me. Using a slightly different concept of "I", I argue that I must exist, because, if I did not exist, I wouldn't be able to contemplate my nonexistance. since by definition I must think, I must exist. It is meaningless to ask the question "What if you had remained ooze?", because if I had, no one would be asking me a question.
We see that we can create things, and assume everthing must have a creator. Does god reason along those lines? God must think either:
1) "Okay, I'm just a fluke. I can live with that." Or,
2) "I must have been created by another god. That explains it!"
If there is a third option, why doesn't it apply to us? Actually, there is!
3) "Hey! I don't need a god, I am a god! Look- I made all this stuff!"
If that sounds too arrogant, remove the "god" bit, and there you have it: my belief system, in a nutshell.
If the other options appeal to you, how about this:
1) If god is a fluke, that is not an uncomfortable notion to him. He has a purpose- he created us! Our purpose, likewise, is to create.
2) If god was created by another god, god knows it. God is also smart enough to realize the truth: His god must have been created by another god! "Wait a second! Who created god's god's god?" god asks. All this makes god's head spin. God goes home to evolve a bigger brain. I wil do likewise.
Yes, I am strongly opposed to the idea of a god. I am a believer in the strong anthropic [sp?] principle, and, using my own concept of "I", I must exist because, If I didn't, I wouldn't know I didn't. I am an intelligent life form, and you cannot map my consciuosness onto ooze, therefore to ask the question "what if you had remained ooze" is meaningless to me.
If there were a god, would he wonder who had created him? No, since God knows everything, He would know that either:
1) A higher god had created him, (same question there), or
2) No, nobody created him, he was just a fluke.
If there is another option, wouldn't it apply to humans?
Some people reason that if we can create things, everything else, including ourselves, must have been created by another intelligent being (god). Ever wonder why god doesn't seem to be bothered by this one? God is smart enough to know his creator doesn't need to exist; why arent we?
If you choose to believe that god was created by another god, who was in turn created by yet another god, and so on, ad infinitum, think about this: god must have had a purpose in mind when he created people, yet what is more purposeless than an infinite chain of gods? Also, why did our god choose to break the chain? That behavior must have been programmed into him by his god. but why would god's god do a thing like that? Why, god^3 must have done it, and so on, and so on. Ouch. My brain hurts. That was really pointless. Excuse me, I feel a sudden urge to evolve another brain.
3) Starting with data of any complexity, mutations destroy (garble perhaps is a better word) data
Actually, even in complex organisms, constructive mutations can occur. They are much more improbable that destructive mutations, but they are reinforced by natural selection.
Energy available for work always decreases. Therefore, eventually - despite the best efforts of man - all life forms will eventually degenerate into randomness.
According to this, I should be degenerating right now. I would be, except that I consume orderly food while increasing the entropy of my environment. Obviously, life can keep on living as long as it has a supply of useful energy and a way to dissipate useless heat. Under these conditions it can also evolve with no problem.
Your "intelligent energy" is BS. My air conditioner creates localized order in my house, it just uses up energy to do so.
Just because the energy available for work always decreases does not mean work cannot be done, and in fact it constantly is, on the cellular level and elsewhere.
Many others have posted links to articles debunking the entropy argument. I would direct you to them, except that by typing the information on the page, I would accelerate my inevitable heat death.
While there is evidence for evolution, there is NO evidence for creation. We would never dream of teaching a SCIENTIFIC theory with as little basis as creation. The Bible's creation story ought to be taught also, perhaps, but with a disclaimer. I'd like to see other creation myths too. How much do you know about the Zoroastrian Creation?
>not teaching evolution is probably a smart move until Evolution can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
No, it is still a very important thing to learn. And we do still call it a "theory", don't we? No sneaky underhandedness here.
Yes, you are missing something. It's gray and squishy and weighs a couple pounds.
"to qualify as a theory, there must be some method of both proving and disproving it."
Um... hello? These states (proved and disproved) are mutually exclusive.
"i would not" -Capitalization "the problem is that it's nt" -Spelling (or were you referring to WinNT? "it is a hypothesis, i read last weeks flamewar" -Capitalization, Punctuation (';' not ','), Punctuation ("week's", not "weeks")
[all of your sentences] -Capitalization
At least get your english correct if you plan to post on/..
You didn't. Apes and humans are both primates. Modern apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor which may have resembled an ape more than a human, but was neither.
>At no time has there been any evidence that a mutation has ever occurred that actually added new information to a genetic structure.
Um... 1) mutations occur 2) mutations change data 3) starting with simpler data, changes tend to add information, not delete it.
When microbes mutate, becoming resistant to antibiotics, are you saying that, rather than gaining the information to avoid being killed, the microbes are discarding old information that told them how to die and when?
If mutations happen, and they change stuff, and all changes are deleterious to information, all life forms would eventually degenerate into randomness. And mutations DO happen.
"Did you know that a transitional annimal [sic] - i.e. one that is between stepps [sic], has never been found?"
What exactly do you mean by a "step"? If we find animals that don't look like anything we've seen before, we classify it and it becomes a "step".
"Did you know that of hundreds of experiments to try to do artifical evolution, not a single one worked?"
You don't have to do an experiment to see evolution at work. How do you suppose that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
"Do you even understand the psudo-science [sic] involved?"
Yes, better than you ever will. How can you criticize the less-than-rigourous proof of evolution when you sympathise with those who advocate ideas with NO proof to go on?
"And how impossible it is?"
Yup, a lot of things seem impossible when you are too stupid to understand them.
"(They pretty much say, yah, it's impossible, but ifyou [sic] wait long enough anything is possible.)"
Who would have thought it was possible for a moron like you to figure out how to use a computer?
Hello? A myth is something, such as crazy religious ideas, believed by idiots with no proof whatsoever. I think the words you are looking for are "scientifically proven theory".
Your definition of "life" is far too narrow. If there existed, say, intellgent selenium-based life forms who drank molten sulfur, might they not wonder what the odds were of an environment so conducive to life, rather than a bunch of amino acid crap on a planet which would be obviously much to cold to drink sulfur on?
We have already demonstrated that silicon-based intelligence is feasible. Why do we feel our particular circumstances are necessary for life?
Your definition of "life" is far too narrow. If there existed, say, intellgent selenium-based life forms who drank molten sulfur, might they not wonder what the odds were of an environment so conducive to life, rather than a bunch of amino acid crap on a planet which would be obviously much to cold to dring sulfur on?
We have already demonstrated that silicon-based intelligence is feasible. Why do we feel our particular circumstances are necessary for life?
Slashdot Mirror
Oops! Actually.
Actualy, checkers is not solved.
True, but... only about $1.00 or $1.50 apiece.
And they would be _so_ much cooler...
The article does mention that the new Vaios come with WinModems. D'oh!
Complete bullshit. Decrease in birth rates due to a homosexual percentage of the general population is linear, or nearly so. True population control "devices", such as plagues, are effective because they are caused and/or sustained by the features of a large population, such as waste management problems, etc.
Hey! Wait for me! Ooh! Ooh! I got one!
Um... fallacy has two 'l's.
>If two black holes collide, you get one black hole and a bunch of gravitational waves. Assuming they do not collide directly. The gravitational waves are created by the black holes orbiting one another, the orbit shrinking and speeding up until they coalesce.
Sorry to post double. I thought my first had not been submitted when IE crashed.
Yes, the concept of a god is offensive to me. Using a slightly different concept of "I", I argue that I must exist, because, if I did not exist, I wouldn't be able to contemplate my nonexistance. since by definition I must think, I must exist. It is meaningless to ask the question "What if you had remained ooze?", because if I had, no one would be asking me a question.
We see that we can create things, and assume everthing must have a creator. Does god reason along those lines? God must think either:
1) "Okay, I'm just a fluke. I can live with that." Or,
2) "I must have been created by another god. That explains it!"
If there is a third option, why doesn't it apply to us? Actually, there is!
3) "Hey! I don't need a god, I am a god! Look- I made all this stuff!"
If that sounds too arrogant, remove the "god" bit, and there you have it: my belief system, in a nutshell.
If the other options appeal to you, how about this:
1) If god is a fluke, that is not an uncomfortable notion to him. He has a purpose- he created us! Our purpose, likewise, is to create.
2) If god was created by another god, god knows it. God is also smart enough to realize the truth: His god must have been created by another god! "Wait a second! Who created god's god's god?" god asks. All this makes god's head spin. God goes home to evolve a bigger brain. I wil do likewise.
Yes, I am strongly opposed to the idea of a god.
I am a believer in the strong anthropic [sp?] principle, and, using my own concept of "I", I must exist because, If I didn't, I wouldn't know I didn't. I am an intelligent life form, and you cannot map my consciuosness onto ooze, therefore to ask the question "what if you had remained ooze" is meaningless to me.
If there were a god, would he wonder who had created him? No, since God knows everything, He would know that either:
1) A higher god had created him, (same question there), or
2) No, nobody created him, he was just a fluke.
If there is another option, wouldn't it apply to humans?
Some people reason that if we can create things, everything else, including ourselves, must have been created by another intelligent being (god). Ever wonder why god doesn't seem to be bothered by this one? God is smart enough to know his creator doesn't need to exist; why arent we?
If you choose to believe that god was created by another god, who was in turn created by yet another god, and so on, ad infinitum, think about this: god must have had a purpose in mind when he created people, yet what is more purposeless than an infinite chain of gods? Also, why did our god choose to break the chain? That behavior must have been programmed into him by his god. but why would god's god do a thing like that? Why, god^3 must have done it, and so on, and so on. Ouch. My brain hurts. That was really pointless. Excuse me, I feel a sudden urge to evolve another brain.
3) Starting with data of any complexity, mutations destroy (garble perhaps is a better word) data
Actually, even in complex organisms, constructive mutations can occur. They are much more improbable that destructive mutations, but they are reinforced by natural selection.
Energy available for work always decreases. Therefore, eventually - despite the best efforts of man - all life forms will eventually degenerate into randomness.
According to this, I should be degenerating right now. I would be, except that I consume orderly food while increasing the entropy of my environment. Obviously, life can keep on living as long as it has a supply of useful energy and a way to dissipate useless heat. Under these conditions it can also evolve with no problem.
Your "intelligent energy" is BS. My air conditioner creates localized order in my house, it just uses up energy to do so.
Just because the energy available for work always decreases does not mean work cannot be done, and in fact it constantly is, on the cellular level and elsewhere.
Many others have posted links to articles debunking the entropy argument. I would direct you to them, except that by typing the information on the page, I would accelerate my inevitable heat death.
Sorry. mixed up was I.
I'm glad to see that some Christians are capable of scientific thought.
(By the way, I am a devout Athiest. Christianity is the least disturbing explanation for the facts, so I might believe it right before I die.)
While there is evidence for evolution, there is NO evidence for creation. We would never dream of teaching a SCIENTIFIC theory with as little basis as creation. The Bible's creation story ought to be taught also, perhaps, but with a disclaimer. I'd like to see other creation myths too. How much do you know about the Zoroastrian Creation?
>not teaching evolution is probably a smart move until Evolution can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
No, it is still a very important thing to learn. And we do still call it a "theory", don't we? No sneaky underhandedness here.
Yes, you are missing something. It's gray and squishy and weighs a couple pounds.
>The main problem with religion is it for listeners.
No, that's the second problem. The main problems is that - (brace yourselves) - it's for brainless imbeciles. Otherwise, I very much agree.
Yes. Rocks are usually krypton dated, I believe.
Ah, religion. The opiate of the ovines.
"to qualify as a theory, there must be some method of both proving and disproving it."
/..
Um... hello? These states (proved and disproved) are mutually exclusive.
"i would not" -Capitalization
"the problem is that it's nt" -Spelling (or were you referring to WinNT?
"it is a hypothesis, i read last weeks flamewar" -Capitalization, Punctuation (';' not ','), Punctuation ("week's", not "weeks")
[all of your sentences] -Capitalization
At least get your english correct if you plan to post on
You didn't. Apes and humans are both primates. Modern apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor which may have resembled an ape more than a human, but was neither.
>At no time has there been any evidence that a mutation has ever occurred that actually added new information to a genetic structure.
Um... 1) mutations occur
2) mutations change data
3) starting with simpler data, changes tend to add information, not delete it.
When microbes mutate, becoming resistant to antibiotics, are you saying that, rather than gaining the information to avoid being killed, the microbes are discarding old information that told them how to die and when?
If mutations happen, and they change stuff, and all changes are deleterious to information, all life forms would eventually degenerate into randomness. And mutations DO happen.
Wrong? He didn't say "the 1900's", he said "this century". It's different.
Also, he could have said "the millenium".
"Did you know that a transitional annimal [sic] - i.e. one that is between stepps [sic], has never been found?"
What exactly do you mean by a "step"? If we find animals that don't look like anything we've seen before, we classify it and it becomes a "step".
"Did you know that of hundreds of experiments to try to do artifical evolution, not a single one worked?"
You don't have to do an experiment to see evolution at work. How do you suppose that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
"Do you even understand the psudo-science [sic] involved?"
Yes, better than you ever will. How can you criticize the less-than-rigourous proof of evolution when you sympathise with those who advocate ideas with NO proof to go on?
"And how impossible it is?"
Yup, a lot of things seem impossible when you are too stupid to understand them.
"(They pretty much say, yah, it's impossible, but ifyou [sic] wait long enough anything is possible.)"
Who would have thought it was possible for a moron like you to figure out how to use a computer?
Hello? A myth is something, such as crazy religious ideas, believed by idiots with no proof whatsoever. I think the words you are looking for are "scientifically proven theory".
Your definition of "life" is far too narrow. If there existed, say, intellgent selenium-based life forms who drank molten sulfur, might they not wonder what the odds were of an environment so conducive to life, rather than a bunch of amino acid crap on a planet which would be obviously much to cold to drink sulfur on?
We have already demonstrated that silicon-based intelligence is feasible. Why do we feel our particular circumstances are necessary for life?
Your definition of "life" is far too narrow. If there existed, say, intellgent selenium-based life forms who drank molten sulfur, might they not wonder what the odds were of an environment so conducive to life, rather than a bunch of amino acid crap on a planet which would be obviously much to cold to dring sulfur on?
We have already demonstrated that silicon-based intelligence is feasible. Why do we feel our particular circumstances are necessary for life?