This is basically a Turing test for humans. The fact that you're overthinking it proves that you pass.;)
Why thank you. I like to think that I would pass as a human. But, maybe you meant that this is a Turing test for SMART humans. In which case, I'd like to thank you again.
That was the point I made at ZDnet. If the company asked me if I could be root-kitted, I would say no. If they asked me if they could enable a more secure transaction, I would probably say yes. My assumption would be that the company would now require tougher passwords etc... and give me some sort of perk for being extra safety conscious.
So the assumption that I would select yes, because I am dumb and always click yes, is retarded. I only click yes when I trust the source (I assume a reputable business to be trustworthy). And no, Sony is not reputable so don't ask.
I operate under paranoia. That's kept me virus free to date.
By increasing my exercise, hitting a minimum of 10,000 steps a day, consuming less "sweets" and smaller portions of food, I have lost 20+ over the last three months. I have worked to lose the weight in a manner that creates a sustainable eating and activity style for life.
This has been working for me. Who knows about you, but I suspect that with some self-discipline and a change of habits, most people could lose weight.
I can't speak to the criminality of this act in Sweden, but in the US it would violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C 2701-1). Because he was providing a service to everyone, he did not have the right to read or share the information (according to US laws).
I believe that he also violated the Wiretap Act and the Pent/Trace Act.
So, yeah, depending on the country in question, he could be considered a criminal. The fact that it was on his hardware is a non-issue.
Sorry, I don't think he should have been busted myself, but dem's the laws.
What I was that the RIAA argued that the defendant continued to maintain a lawyer beyond a reasonable point. (Sorry, don't have the exact quote in front of me.) The judge tossed that idea out on its ear.
So the RIAA, with all of its prosecuting lawyers, decided that the defendant shouldn't maintain a lawyer until the entirety of the case is settled? Who are these people? The undead serving at the devil's bidding?
Really! This goes way beyond the pale. As far as I am concerned, a nastier collection of people doesn't exist anywhere else on earth. (Except for maybe the MPAA, but I digress.)
Wow, I wished they had told me sooner; before I had successfully used Beryl on my Feisty box. Now, I am going to have my cool display break on me....
Seriously people; what's the deal? Beryl has worked for me; and I could be an anomaly, but A) I know it is beta and B) it has worked for my friends. So is Beryl really that bad?
And regardless of your opinions of Ubuntu as a distribution, is it really that buggy? I haven't had any problems yet. Have any of you?
Informal poll here:
Is Beryl (not required for Ubuntu) as bad as this guy makes it out to be?
Is Feisty (required for Ubuntu 7.04) as bad as this guy makes it out to be?
I'm a republican, but you make a good point. We get stuck on the same script as well. If I could have predicted the future, I wouldn't have voted for Bush, but alas I did. Mostly, I dislike the DHS and the Patriot act (I WANT MY FREEDOM AND PRIVACY).
All that said, I am interested in the Democratic campaign for one simple reason: Obama's use of the internet and related technologies. He has showed some intelligence in his approach to the internet and that will earn him points against the Clinton war machine. (And yes, I shudder at the thought of Clinton in the White House. At this point, Obama seems to be the best candidate for the White House for the Democrats. He appears to be the most middle of the road.)
My two cents.
That would be nice, but unfortunately, they seem to be finding ways to invade our privacy more. If I could shut down one dept of the Government, I would start with HS.
Look, between my wife an I, we make just a bit over the poverty level. While I do live in a low cost area of USA, I find that I have plenty of money for my needs. I am well clothed and I have just bought a new home and I have money saved up for a rainy day.
My point is this, if people work and live carefully then these scales will be unimportant. I don't need to steal as I live confortably (besides the fact that theft is wrong).
Of course I don't own a PS3, HD-TV, or any other wizbang item and I don't eat out consistently. My nicest "toy" is a iPod Nano.
With a bit of self-control, many of these people who are "economicaly disadvantaged" could have nice lives regardless of what some economist predicts.
This doesn't surprise me. The politics have be a joke for years. While I would not say that this is typical of the Democratic party, the Dems have been incredibly overt in election fraud and other types of fraud in Maryland.
You see Maryland has been, until recently, a one party state and without any real checks or balances, things have gotten out of hand. Erlich's election was the first sign of a real shift in the state politics (as no one believed that he actually had a chance).
I have seen mayors use the "race card" as a "get out of jail free card." I have seen Governors elected on votes of dead people and pets.
This wouldn't surprise any Marylander at all. I am glad that I was able to move away.
No, I do use external mice, but not when I am actively typing and working. The buttons on the keyboard are faster for me. I only use the mouse when I am casually surfing the web etc....
Just my preference.
I am not certain how you have your center button configured, but this is a fascinating feature on the ThinkPad. If you hold the button down and then move the TrackPoint, it will act like a scroll wheel.
This is assuming that you are using Windows and have the TrackPoint software installed. My favorite feature!
Ummmm... Actually, with the ThinkPad, the right click button is nicely placed. Because the TrackPoint is on the keyboard, it is simply a matter of moving the thumb to hit either mouse button. One doesn't have to move to a mouse at all. I have a cordless logitech on my laptop and I seldom use it because it is faster to use the TrackPoint design.
I rely on the alternate click to much to be without it.... Sorry Apple, but its a necessity for me.
Nice analysis. I am in the print industry and there are several observations that I would like to make to further expand your point.
First, not every book releases in hardcover becuase of the cost. The author must be a "good seller" or better. Otherwise, they go straight to softcover. (For many authors, it is a special day when they make the transition to hardcover.)
Second, the print industry watches carefully thier sales. Sometimes they have a set window like Hollywoods 90 days from theater to DVD, but it isn't that solid. It changes per book based upon the current market for that title.
Another issue to consider. The book must be worth keeping if you are going to print it in hardcover. The early adopters - those who have to have the book "right away" are also those who will keep the book forever. They love thier books. Those who buy softcovers, may or may not want to keep thier books forever (or they may just be to poor to buy the hardcover). Those who buy neither use the library. They have no desire to save books.
The music industry needs to target every group. I think that releasing a CD several weeks ahead of the iTunes store is a good idea (in theory). It is the same as with a hardcover title. The difference falls in the availability of piracy. It is much easier to steal the music than the text of a book. Therefore, the CDs should probably be released 1-2 days in advance to limit the piracy and then probably only to the fan club or some other group of "loyals." Then the iTunes would fill the needs of the cheaper target like a softcover book does. Finally the streaming subscription groups fulfill the digital library groups.
How about a music player comparable to a 5G iPod? Then have it drop into a cradle that ads the functionality of a gaming system. Then they could sell the system as a mp3 player with video/pic functionality with an option to upgrade to a full gaming system complete with wifi....
Just a thought.
I agree! I haven't bought an iPod yet - though Christmas is coming, but I wouldn't buy any cheaper product for one simple reason: I refuse to switch from iTunes to any other music software. IMHO, the others are inferior. I know that some people disagree (which is fine), but I will only consider the iPod becuase of iTunes.
I do not have internet and I watch OTA programming. I would love to be on cable internet with cable TV, but I can't afford a $45 bill a month, nor a new TV. My wife is working on her PHD and I work for a university - enough to get by on comfortably, but not enough for any luxury like those.
Definitely the best suggestion of the bunch. Of course, I am not certain that I can see my wife wearing the diamond after I am gone.... I can't see anyone wanting to keep the diamond knowing that it used to be a person.
Ok. You have laid out a logical progression for dinosaurs to evolve into birds. Does that mean that evolution actually occurred? Just because you have a possible sequence, does not mean that it actually happened.
Once upon a time, it was assumed that the our Earth was the center of the solar system. They saw the sun and stars rotate overhead and developed a logical theory regarding those facts. They were wrong, though I seriously doubt they intended to be wrong. They assumed that a logical explanation proved their case. When better testing came along, they were proven false. Evolution is the same way. Justs because there is a logical explanation does not equal proof.
Truth be told, both evolutionists and creationists interpret facts based upon their presuppositions. The evolutionist asks me to believe that a mathematically improbable sequence of events actually occurred to create one animal. Even if I could accept that one evolution, no matter how improbable, actually occurred, it requires a great deal of faith to accept that thousands upon thousands of mathematically improbable mutations occurred in tandem. Further, it requires a great deal of faith to accept that these mutations all interwove themselves into the delecate balance that exists today. What are the probabilities that any one mutation occurred let alone that the billions required for a human? What are the probabilities that all of the mutations required to support the evolution occurred at exactly the right time to support the development of humanity?
To me, the chances of all of these mutations actually occurring is too great to accept. My faith in God seems more reasonable as well as consistent.
The earth is not a closed system, but the universe is. Eventually you will run to the end of the open system. The second law still applies if you include the entire system in which the aforementioned subsytems are contained.
So you have given examples of animals that appear to be examples of in-between species (ostrich, squirrel), but what evidence exists to demonstrate how they are in-between?
Please explain how mutations add up to new creatures. How does a dinosuar become a bird? Why does it become a bird? Why would it develop wings? Why would it switch to a beak? Why would it develop a drilling technique like a woodpecker? Why would a woodpecker develop its special tongue and the special muscles that protect its brain simultaneously? Without the special muscles or padding behind its beak, its attempts to drill into the tree would kill it. What about the termite? You did not answer that. I did not say that I had all the answers or that every attempt by the young earth creationists was always correct. I did say and still have not seen proof that shows evolution to be a better answer.
I stand corrected on the map of the iceman. I was mistaken with regards to that detail.
Why can't evolutionists demonstrate a true cross-over animal? What proof is their for evolution?
Why am I misunderstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Is it because it conflicts with evolution? Evolution requires more order to develop out of lesser order. How is this comaptible with the law that all things tend toward an equilibrium or disorder? I always felt that this was a simpmle law to grasp. I might misunderstand it, but the math that I have seen seems to defend my point of view on this.
Secondly, I did not suppose that evolutionists claimed that a T-Rex turned into a bird. I recognize that many small dinosaurs existed. But, that still doesn't explain or even come close to proving that a dinosaur could change into a bird (even over several million generations). Wings would have been useless without feathers and a light bone structure. How would a ultra-light bone structure assit a dinosuar? Don't assume that you know what I am thinking.
I do believe that God created dinosuars and I believe that God allowed them to become extinct. Dinosuars are not people. They do not have souls. Even if God destroyed dinosaurs by choice, and the Bible indicates that they did indeed survive the flood, as creator God owns the dinosuars. He can destroy them at will.
Here is the crux of the problem. If God exists, then He created. If He created, then He owns. If He owns, then He has the right to destroy or punish as well as reward and bless. If an artist creates a sculpture, the artist has the right to destroy it if He chooses. Who is to tell him that he is wrong to destroy that which he made? Does the artwork have that right? No, it doesn't. Man repells at the idea that they are answerable to a greater being.
Yes I believe that Eskimoes and aboriginies had one ancestor, but last I checked, the evolutionist agreed. That is falacious argumentation. I also, give those groups credit for the intelligence that they had. They could and did travel accross the oceans. As I recall the iceman found a few years back had maps of the earth from 4-5 thousand years ago. That is the time period that I am discussing. Not hundreds of thousand years ago.
I agree with you, viruses mutate and become resistant to drugs. The key here is to understand that they do not become new viruses. They only mutate within their own strain. Mutations have never been demonstrated to create a new species.
You have attacked my beliefs, but where is your proof to defend yourself? My answer is simple, but it is also consitent with facts. Mt. Saint Helens has challenged the beliefs of geologists. In a short 20 years, many formations have been formed that have traditionally been said to require thousands or millions of years. Carbon dating of rock samples at Mt. Saint Helens reveal the new rock to be over two-million years old. Is that accurate fact? Not at all. The rock is less than 25 years old. The list continues and the facts of evolution crumble. I have a rational faith. My faith in God can be substantiated by science and archeology. The Bible has been proven true repeatedly. I have a reasonable faith.
I can give my evidence for Creation. The missing link fits the creation theory beautifully. There would not be a link if God created all creatures and commanded each creature to reproduce after its own kind. Secondly, the Grand Canyon is great evidence for a universal flood as well as the dinosaur graveyards (in which many types of dinosaurs are buried and fossilized together). More evidence comes from the complexity of life. It could not be possible for life to be so compmlex unless the Second Law of Thermodynamics was suspended or non-existent. The truth is that evolution is as much a matter of faith as creation. Every evolutionist that I have read or heard about assumes many things. They assume that any facts which disagree with their theory must not be facts. I understand that these men are highly trained and all are intelligent. I will not denegrate them because I believe that they interpret facts incorrectly. How could a bird evolve? How could a dinosaur with thick dense bones and leathery skin, turn into a bird with soft skin, feathers, and an ultra-light bone structure? Consider this short paper on the termite: http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbook s/tfc/medialib/Applications/termites.html and then explain how all three organisms evolved simultaneously since all three are required to support life. Even if one occured, how could a two or more termites have evolved simultaneously to allow for breeding? Even without a missing link, why can't science find entire lines of animals that are crossing the lines? The simple fact is that creationism answers the questions.
If you prefer a philosphical point of view, then consider this: something has always existed. Matter did not just appear out of nohwere to form a primordial soup. Either matter has always existed or chance has always existed or God has always existed. Something has had to exist to start the universe. God seems to be the reasonable explanation in my mind. Since I do not see chance mutations that are beneficial today and no scientist that I am aware of has ever demonstrated a beneficial chance mutation, I will not believe in an eternal chance. Since it has been demonstrated that life does not spontaneously occur, I will not believe that matter existed and that matter is our mother.
The fact that the earth is situated perfectly around the sun to prevent us from freezing or boiling seems to demonstrate a grand design and a wise maker. If the moon is moving slowly away from the earth each year as the scientists tell us, then calculations reveal that millions of years ago the moons orbit would have devestated all of life on the earth with tital waves and earthquakes. Only if the earth was young could life have survived the closer orbit of the moon.
You state that evolution is true. That is your right and choice. Would you be willing to defend your belief? What proof can you offer against these problems for evolution? To many people the statement that "God created it all in six-days" appears to be a cop-out. It is the only statement that fits all of the facts. I do not have every answer. I know this, but I also know that my belief in a literal creation answers more questions than evolution does.
I am not your enemy, whether or not we disagree. I have appreciated your candid and polite responses. I dislike talking with those who lash out instead of replying intelligently. Your posts (and your grammar) reveal that you are intelligent and that you have an education. Thank you for being a gentleman.
In Matthew 19:4, Christ states, "Haven't you read that He who created them in the beginging made the male and female?" This statement was in the context of divorce, but clearly evidences Christ's literal interpretation of Genesis. In the phrase "made the male and female," He is quoting Genesis 1:27. In the next verse, he recites Genesis 2:24 regarding marriage.
As far as my "narrow interpretation," instead of just implying that my view is wrong, please demonstrate it biblically. If my explanation of the biblical definition of Christian is in error, show me the verses which prove your case.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice link. I hadn't seen that. Much obliged.
The part that I don't like is the book selection and pricing compared to Amazon. Amazon has a better selection and better prices.
Then again, while I read a lot, I don't necessarily buy many books on my budget. So....
This is basically a Turing test for humans. The fact that you're overthinking it proves that you pass. ;)
Why thank you. I like to think that I would pass as a human. But, maybe you meant that this is a Turing test for SMART humans. In which case, I'd like to thank you again.
Cheers.
That was the point I made at ZDnet. If the company asked me if I could be root-kitted, I would say no. If they asked me if they could enable a more secure transaction, I would probably say yes. My assumption would be that the company would now require tougher passwords etc... and give me some sort of perk for being extra safety conscious. So the assumption that I would select yes, because I am dumb and always click yes, is retarded. I only click yes when I trust the source (I assume a reputable business to be trustworthy). And no, Sony is not reputable so don't ask. I operate under paranoia. That's kept me virus free to date.
By increasing my exercise, hitting a minimum of 10,000 steps a day, consuming less "sweets" and smaller portions of food, I have lost 20+ over the last three months. I have worked to lose the weight in a manner that creates a sustainable eating and activity style for life.
This has been working for me. Who knows about you, but I suspect that with some self-discipline and a change of habits, most people could lose weight.
On this point, I read a great humorous book (true story) about a man's effort to lose weight: http://conservativebooktalk.com/2007/10/22/one-third-off-by-irvin-s-cobb/
I can't speak to the criminality of this act in Sweden, but in the US it would violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C 2701-1). Because he was providing a service to everyone, he did not have the right to read or share the information (according to US laws). I believe that he also violated the Wiretap Act and the Pent/Trace Act. So, yeah, depending on the country in question, he could be considered a criminal. The fact that it was on his hardware is a non-issue. Sorry, I don't think he should have been busted myself, but dem's the laws.
What I was that the RIAA argued that the defendant continued to maintain a lawyer beyond a reasonable point. (Sorry, don't have the exact quote in front of me.) The judge tossed that idea out on its ear.
So the RIAA, with all of its prosecuting lawyers, decided that the defendant shouldn't maintain a lawyer until the entirety of the case is settled? Who are these people? The undead serving at the devil's bidding?
Really! This goes way beyond the pale. As far as I am concerned, a nastier collection of people doesn't exist anywhere else on earth. (Except for maybe the MPAA, but I digress.)
And for the record: I don't pirate.
Wow, I wished they had told me sooner; before I had successfully used Beryl on my Feisty box. Now, I am going to have my cool display break on me....
Seriously people; what's the deal? Beryl has worked for me; and I could be an anomaly, but A) I know it is beta and B) it has worked for my friends. So is Beryl really that bad?
And regardless of your opinions of Ubuntu as a distribution, is it really that buggy? I haven't had any problems yet. Have any of you?
Informal poll here:
Is Beryl (not required for Ubuntu) as bad as this guy makes it out to be?
Is Feisty (required for Ubuntu 7.04) as bad as this guy makes it out to be?
I'm a republican, but you make a good point. We get stuck on the same script as well. If I could have predicted the future, I wouldn't have voted for Bush, but alas I did. Mostly, I dislike the DHS and the Patriot act (I WANT MY FREEDOM AND PRIVACY). All that said, I am interested in the Democratic campaign for one simple reason: Obama's use of the internet and related technologies. He has showed some intelligence in his approach to the internet and that will earn him points against the Clinton war machine. (And yes, I shudder at the thought of Clinton in the White House. At this point, Obama seems to be the best candidate for the White House for the Democrats. He appears to be the most middle of the road.) My two cents.
That would be nice, but unfortunately, they seem to be finding ways to invade our privacy more. If I could shut down one dept of the Government, I would start with HS.
Look, between my wife an I, we make just a bit over the poverty level. While I do live in a low cost area of USA, I find that I have plenty of money for my needs. I am well clothed and I have just bought a new home and I have money saved up for a rainy day. My point is this, if people work and live carefully then these scales will be unimportant. I don't need to steal as I live confortably (besides the fact that theft is wrong). Of course I don't own a PS3, HD-TV, or any other wizbang item and I don't eat out consistently. My nicest "toy" is a iPod Nano. With a bit of self-control, many of these people who are "economicaly disadvantaged" could have nice lives regardless of what some economist predicts.
Fair enough. But the point that the shift is fairly recent still stands. Maryland isn't known for being a good two-party system. :-)
This doesn't surprise me. The politics have be a joke for years. While I would not say that this is typical of the Democratic party, the Dems have been incredibly overt in election fraud and other types of fraud in Maryland. You see Maryland has been, until recently, a one party state and without any real checks or balances, things have gotten out of hand. Erlich's election was the first sign of a real shift in the state politics (as no one believed that he actually had a chance). I have seen mayors use the "race card" as a "get out of jail free card." I have seen Governors elected on votes of dead people and pets. This wouldn't surprise any Marylander at all. I am glad that I was able to move away.
No, I do use external mice, but not when I am actively typing and working. The buttons on the keyboard are faster for me. I only use the mouse when I am casually surfing the web etc.... Just my preference.
I am not certain how you have your center button configured, but this is a fascinating feature on the ThinkPad. If you hold the button down and then move the TrackPoint, it will act like a scroll wheel. This is assuming that you are using Windows and have the TrackPoint software installed. My favorite feature!
Ummmm... Actually, with the ThinkPad, the right click button is nicely placed. Because the TrackPoint is on the keyboard, it is simply a matter of moving the thumb to hit either mouse button. One doesn't have to move to a mouse at all. I have a cordless logitech on my laptop and I seldom use it because it is faster to use the TrackPoint design. I rely on the alternate click to much to be without it.... Sorry Apple, but its a necessity for me.
Nice analysis. I am in the print industry and there are several observations that I would like to make to further expand your point. First, not every book releases in hardcover becuase of the cost. The author must be a "good seller" or better. Otherwise, they go straight to softcover. (For many authors, it is a special day when they make the transition to hardcover.) Second, the print industry watches carefully thier sales. Sometimes they have a set window like Hollywoods 90 days from theater to DVD, but it isn't that solid. It changes per book based upon the current market for that title. Another issue to consider. The book must be worth keeping if you are going to print it in hardcover. The early adopters - those who have to have the book "right away" are also those who will keep the book forever. They love thier books. Those who buy softcovers, may or may not want to keep thier books forever (or they may just be to poor to buy the hardcover). Those who buy neither use the library. They have no desire to save books. The music industry needs to target every group. I think that releasing a CD several weeks ahead of the iTunes store is a good idea (in theory). It is the same as with a hardcover title. The difference falls in the availability of piracy. It is much easier to steal the music than the text of a book. Therefore, the CDs should probably be released 1-2 days in advance to limit the piracy and then probably only to the fan club or some other group of "loyals." Then the iTunes would fill the needs of the cheaper target like a softcover book does. Finally the streaming subscription groups fulfill the digital library groups.
How about a music player comparable to a 5G iPod? Then have it drop into a cradle that ads the functionality of a gaming system. Then they could sell the system as a mp3 player with video/pic functionality with an option to upgrade to a full gaming system complete with wifi.... Just a thought.
I agree! I haven't bought an iPod yet - though Christmas is coming, but I wouldn't buy any cheaper product for one simple reason: I refuse to switch from iTunes to any other music software. IMHO, the others are inferior. I know that some people disagree (which is fine), but I will only consider the iPod becuase of iTunes.
I do not have internet and I watch OTA programming. I would love to be on cable internet with cable TV, but I can't afford a $45 bill a month, nor a new TV. My wife is working on her PHD and I work for a university - enough to get by on comfortably, but not enough for any luxury like those.
Definitely the best suggestion of the bunch. Of course, I am not certain that I can see my wife wearing the diamond after I am gone.... I can't see anyone wanting to keep the diamond knowing that it used to be a person.
Ok. You have laid out a logical progression for dinosaurs to evolve into birds. Does that mean that evolution actually occurred? Just because you have a possible sequence, does not mean that it actually happened.
Once upon a time, it was assumed that the our Earth was the center of the solar system. They saw the sun and stars rotate overhead and developed a logical theory regarding those facts. They were wrong, though I seriously doubt they intended to be wrong. They assumed that a logical explanation proved their case. When better testing came along, they were proven false. Evolution is the same way. Justs because there is a logical explanation does not equal proof.
Truth be told, both evolutionists and creationists interpret facts based upon their presuppositions. The evolutionist asks me to believe that a mathematically improbable sequence of events actually occurred to create one animal. Even if I could accept that one evolution, no matter how improbable, actually occurred, it requires a great deal of faith to accept that thousands upon thousands of mathematically improbable mutations occurred in tandem. Further, it requires a great deal of faith to accept that these mutations all interwove themselves into the delecate balance that exists today. What are the probabilities that any one mutation occurred let alone that the billions required for a human? What are the probabilities that all of the mutations required to support the evolution occurred at exactly the right time to support the development of humanity?
To me, the chances of all of these mutations actually occurring is too great to accept. My faith in God seems more reasonable as well as consistent.
The earth is not a closed system, but the universe is. Eventually you will run to the end of the open system. The second law still applies if you include the entire system in which the aforementioned subsytems are contained.
So you have given examples of animals that appear to be examples of in-between species (ostrich, squirrel), but what evidence exists to demonstrate how they are in-between?
Please explain how mutations add up to new creatures. How does a dinosuar become a bird? Why does it become a bird? Why would it develop wings? Why would it switch to a beak? Why would it develop a drilling technique like a woodpecker? Why would a woodpecker develop its special tongue and the special muscles that protect its brain simultaneously? Without the special muscles or padding behind its beak, its attempts to drill into the tree would kill it. What about the termite? You did not answer that. I did not say that I had all the answers or that every attempt by the young earth creationists was always correct. I did say and still have not seen proof that shows evolution to be a better answer.
I stand corrected on the map of the iceman. I was mistaken with regards to that detail.
Why can't evolutionists demonstrate a true cross-over animal? What proof is their for evolution?
Why am I misunderstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Is it because it conflicts with evolution? Evolution requires more order to develop out of lesser order. How is this comaptible with the law that all things tend toward an equilibrium or disorder? I always felt that this was a simpmle law to grasp. I might misunderstand it, but the math that I have seen seems to defend my point of view on this.
Secondly, I did not suppose that evolutionists claimed that a T-Rex turned into a bird. I recognize that many small dinosaurs existed. But, that still doesn't explain or even come close to proving that a dinosaur could change into a bird (even over several million generations). Wings would have been useless without feathers and a light bone structure. How would a ultra-light bone structure assit a dinosuar? Don't assume that you know what I am thinking.
I do believe that God created dinosuars and I believe that God allowed them to become extinct. Dinosuars are not people. They do not have souls. Even if God destroyed dinosaurs by choice, and the Bible indicates that they did indeed survive the flood, as creator God owns the dinosuars. He can destroy them at will.
Here is the crux of the problem. If God exists, then He created. If He created, then He owns. If He owns, then He has the right to destroy or punish as well as reward and bless. If an artist creates a sculpture, the artist has the right to destroy it if He chooses. Who is to tell him that he is wrong to destroy that which he made? Does the artwork have that right? No, it doesn't. Man repells at the idea that they are answerable to a greater being.
Yes I believe that Eskimoes and aboriginies had one ancestor, but last I checked, the evolutionist agreed. That is falacious argumentation. I also, give those groups credit for the intelligence that they had. They could and did travel accross the oceans. As I recall the iceman found a few years back had maps of the earth from 4-5 thousand years ago. That is the time period that I am discussing. Not hundreds of thousand years ago.
I agree with you, viruses mutate and become resistant to drugs. The key here is to understand that they do not become new viruses. They only mutate within their own strain. Mutations have never been demonstrated to create a new species.
You have attacked my beliefs, but where is your proof to defend yourself? My answer is simple, but it is also consitent with facts. Mt. Saint Helens has challenged the beliefs of geologists. In a short 20 years, many formations have been formed that have traditionally been said to require thousands or millions of years. Carbon dating of rock samples at Mt. Saint Helens reveal the new rock to be over two-million years old. Is that accurate fact? Not at all. The rock is less than 25 years old. The list continues and the facts of evolution crumble. I have a rational faith. My faith in God can be substantiated by science and archeology. The Bible has been proven true repeatedly. I have a reasonable faith.
I can give my evidence for Creation. The missing link fits the creation theory beautifully. There would not be a link if God created all creatures and commanded each creature to reproduce after its own kind. Secondly, the Grand Canyon is great evidence for a universal flood as well as the dinosaur graveyards (in which many types of dinosaurs are buried and fossilized together). More evidence comes from the complexity of life. It could not be possible for life to be so compmlex unless the Second Law of Thermodynamics was suspended or non-existent. The truth is that evolution is as much a matter of faith as creation. Every evolutionist that I have read or heard about assumes many things. They assume that any facts which disagree with their theory must not be facts. I understand that these men are highly trained and all are intelligent. I will not denegrate them because I believe that they interpret facts incorrectly. How could a bird evolve? How could a dinosaur with thick dense bones and leathery skin, turn into a bird with soft skin, feathers, and an ultra-light bone structure? Consider this short paper on the termite: http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbook s/tfc/medialib/Applications/termites.html and then explain how all three organisms evolved simultaneously since all three are required to support life. Even if one occured, how could a two or more termites have evolved simultaneously to allow for breeding? Even without a missing link, why can't science find entire lines of animals that are crossing the lines? The simple fact is that creationism answers the questions.
If you prefer a philosphical point of view, then consider this: something has always existed. Matter did not just appear out of nohwere to form a primordial soup. Either matter has always existed or chance has always existed or God has always existed. Something has had to exist to start the universe. God seems to be the reasonable explanation in my mind. Since I do not see chance mutations that are beneficial today and no scientist that I am aware of has ever demonstrated a beneficial chance mutation, I will not believe in an eternal chance. Since it has been demonstrated that life does not spontaneously occur, I will not believe that matter existed and that matter is our mother.
The fact that the earth is situated perfectly around the sun to prevent us from freezing or boiling seems to demonstrate a grand design and a wise maker. If the moon is moving slowly away from the earth each year as the scientists tell us, then calculations reveal that millions of years ago the moons orbit would have devestated all of life on the earth with tital waves and earthquakes. Only if the earth was young could life have survived the closer orbit of the moon.
You state that evolution is true. That is your right and choice. Would you be willing to defend your belief? What proof can you offer against these problems for evolution? To many people the statement that "God created it all in six-days" appears to be a cop-out. It is the only statement that fits all of the facts. I do not have every answer. I know this, but I also know that my belief in a literal creation answers more questions than evolution does.
I am not your enemy, whether or not we disagree. I have appreciated your candid and polite responses. I dislike talking with those who lash out instead of replying intelligently. Your posts (and your grammar) reveal that you are intelligent and that you have an education. Thank you for being a gentleman.
In Matthew 19:4, Christ states, "Haven't you read that He who created them in the beginging made the male and female?" This statement was in the context of divorce, but clearly evidences Christ's literal interpretation of Genesis. In the phrase "made the male and female," He is quoting Genesis 1:27. In the next verse, he recites Genesis 2:24 regarding marriage.
As far as my "narrow interpretation," instead of just implying that my view is wrong, please demonstrate it biblically. If my explanation of the biblical definition of Christian is in error, show me the verses which prove your case.