I've been able to get a SuSE 9.2 Pro distribution to setup an OpenLDAP server by using one manual step.
While there is no OpenLDAP server configuration module in yast, all the other pieces are there. I finally boiled it down to starting with default OpenLDAP config files that are installed when you install the OpenLDAP server RPM, adding the base dn entries, and then doing one ldapadd by hand to create the "organization" level objects in the OpenLDAP database.
Once that has been done, when you use the yast2 module to configure an LDAP authentication client there a couple of dialogs where the "client" configuration will do the ldapadd operations that create the rest of the OpenLDAP directory structure on the server, then start adding clients.
I had more trouble getting the TLS stuff to work, and I'm still not certain how that it's working properly. But now on any system in my network I can add, update, and delete user and group information through the yast2 dialogs, including additional fields in the ldap schemas.
For Samba, I did have to add the Samba schema to the slapd configuration, and I wound up using smbpasswd to set some of the fields in the ldap directory.
OpenAFS is also a optional installable package on the SuSE disks. There's also a Debian package with some pretty good server installation/setup instructions. SuSE pairs it up with Heimdal, not the MIT Kerberos.
The installation is simple enough, but the setup throws you into the deep end. The nicest part of the whole setup is that once it's up and running, it's the lowest hassle file server I've dealt with. When I need to rebuild one of the servers(distribution version upgrades mostly), I just tell OpenAFS to move everything onto other servers, rebuild the old server and move stuff back onto it without interferring with users at all.
Part of the yast2 setup for Kerberos also turns on Openafs client function. Which seems a little backward.
I would say it was only slightly offtopic. OpenSSH is a collection of technologies, with the primary purpose being to set up communications pipes between systems. Generally, when it does authentication, it uses the underlying system authentication functions. That would be the/etc/passwd based authentication, NIS, LDAP, PAM, or what have you.
The Public/Private key mechanisms seem to be another layer that's stacked on top of some of the simpler authentication mechanisms. Which is why is getting OpenSSH to work with Kerberos or Kerberos with OpenAFS can be a real grind. And when OpenSSH doesn't have anyplace to retrieve the public key information from (like your home directory) because it can't prove who the user is you're reduced to entering the password for the underlying target system authentication system every time...
My impression of Kerberos is that it is more about Authentication (proving who you are) than anything else. Once you can prove who a user is, now you have another set of problems, in particular, Authorization.
If you mention using the Public/Private key stuff (like OpenSSH uses) around some of the Kerberos groups, you'll get some interesting viewpoints.
OK: "If you are unwilling/unable to spend the time required to acquire the scientific knowledge required to make informed statements, supported by evidence, about a subject you are best served by assuming the scientific consensus is correct."
That wasn't hard.
Strange, I don't see faith in that statement anywhere. I see "assume the consensus is correct", but that's only required if you're too lazy to do the work required to have an informed opinion. And once you have that knowledge you can actually try to dispute the interpretation of the facts behind the consensus and change it.
Why did you assume I didn't have such evidence? That was neither explicit nor implicit in my statements. In fact, it was just the opposite: my statements assumed there was evidence to back up the claims, and I gave you a brief overview of some of that evidence for a particular example.
You provided an example of an issue without any citiations of the source documents or scientific data. It has every appearance of coming from some group fighting a political battle about property rights, but I can't even be certain about that because you've provided no sources.
And you seem to feel that political example is sufficient reason to label other scientific findings "bad science". While you may feel that I should assume that you have sufficient evidence to support your assertions, I am not obligated to believe that your evidence is sufficient or even supports your position without seeing that evidence.
One I did not make, again, either explicitly or implicitly
And here I would just plain disagree. The example your provided has no appearance of "bad science". But without citations, I can't really say more than it appears that there could be scientific disagreement about the issue and that the matter can't be resolved on any scientific grounds. So, that group is stuck with a messy political solution that nobody is going to be happy with.
You said you wrote nothing about religion, and yet you are saying I should take things by faith from people out society has duly designated as speakers of the truth, without questioning them.
First religion, now faith.. Interesting...
Show me where I said that you should take anything a scientist says on faith. I'll restate it more plainly. If you are unwilling/unable to spend the time required to acquire the scientific knowledge required to make informed statements, supported by evidence, about a subject you are best served by assuming the scientific consensus is correct.
One of the things that you can be certain of is that an incorrect concensus will be corrected as evidence is presented that contradicts the consensus.
That may take a while, but it has always happened, in every area of scientific endevour. And it always will happen.
Your point about the politics involved is sensible. When it becomes a political issue, all the rules change. I wasn't writing about the politics.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that someone should have an advanced degree in a particular field to speak intelligently on it. Many of our great scientists in history never had advanced degrees.
There is a profound difference between being able to speak intelligently about a field and pronouncing the work of scientists in that field as bad science without presenting evidence that supports that claim.
If you feel that the implications of the scientific consensus opinion are uacceptable for political reasons, so be it.
That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. The same class of issue as the Indiana state legislature considering a law that set the value of Pi. If the science is wrong it will be corrected, eventually.
If political actions are chosen that run counter to the scientific recommendations, they might prove the science wrong by succeeding. (Which the scientific process will use as additional evidence to support a new consensus.) If the political actions fail, then the usual political fingerpointing starts, and the scientific process takes the failure as additional data.
Viewing the scientific process solely as a political process is as much a mistake as viewing the entire decision making process as a scientific process.
Religion? I wrote nothing about religion. I don't believe scientists are imbued with special powers either.
However, they are "imbued" with the knowledge and competence that concentrated study in a specialized field gives them. And having their published work criticised by people who have relevant knowledge and competence.
If the scientists in a field are in disagreement about something you'll be able to tell by looking at the peer-reviewed journals. If there's a consensus about some issues in the field you'll be able to tell that too.
If there's no scientific consensus about something, anyone not doing research in the field would be best served by reserving judgement.
If there is a scientific consensus on some issue, that's the way to bet. Same as the racetrack. You can bet against the odds, but you'll almost certainly go home broker than the guys betting on the favorites.
The only other intellectually honest thing to do is to spend the time to get your own advanced degree in the field, so you can make competent statements and provide the evidence to support your position.
The single miracle that I think would deal with the situation would be for god to directly place the knowledge that he existed into every persons mind, without affecting their free will.
An omnipotent god could do that. After all, that's what omnipotent means..
Having different numbers of chromosomes doesn't preclude breeding. Horses and donkey's are one example, although their offspring are generally sterile (but not always). Also, if I remember correctly, there is a wild Asian horse that has a different number of chromosomes that can breed with other horses.
Then there is the difference in chromosome numbers between chimps and humans. The difference in number is accounted for by a fusion of two chromosomes. Without that fusion, chimps and humans would have the same number of chromosomes.
And then there are hybrid fertile plants that have full copies of the chromosomes of both their parent species.
If we assume that it's to late to prevent the damaging effects of global, what are the chances that we'll be able to develop and implement any plans for ameliorating those effects?
Right now I'd say those chances are in the same range as the chances of a celluloid cat, being chased by an asbestos dog, in hell.
Until enough people die, nothing substantial will be done. The remaining questions is how many deaths is going to be "enough".
My wild-ass-guess is that it'll take at least 10 million deaths due to direct, weather related, causes and agricultural failure to overcome inertia.
>>Your newest qualifier:)...>> provide references to some creationism supporting articles in refereed journals.
Hardly my newest qualifier, it was in the first statement. You know the part about
You can read reputable to mean a scientist working to increase knowledge in his field of study and submitting his work for review by other scientists in the same field of study
>They publish. The article I pointed to mentioned a few, including this one:
And this paper supports your position of a young earth exactly how? A critique of evolutionary theories of Photo synthesis hardly states that the earth is 6000 years old.
And I notice that you came up with a grand total of one citation, your 10,000 creation scientists should have thousands of publications. Unless, or course, they have no evidence that supports their theories.
>It's not one paper. There is a general trend here. I mentioned one mtDNA paper, but the AIG article mentioned several papers.
Oh, really? With the thousands of real scientific articles published each year, I'm sure that AIG can cherry pick any sort of trend they want to. After all they already know what the conclusion is.
>> which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known".
>No. It means better experiments with better intruments and more direct observations of mtDNA show mutation rates are higher than previously thought.
And that generalizes from mtDNA to all DNA mutation rates exactly how? What papers support that conclusion? It was also interesting that you left out the part of the abstract where they specified that they had chosen hypervariable segments of mtDNA to study. And in the same search, I found other papers that called for a 10 fold higher rate of mutation instead of 20 fold. And that was from a 2003 paper, Human Genetics, March 2003, PMID 12571803, which would make your "trend" go the other way.
>No. I am not the one making the "postive claim" - it is the article. It's first line reads:Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found.
And that one person was part of a human population, not Noah. There is nothing in the article that supports your statement that the single ancestor was the only ancestor. And, as the article points out toward the end, as populations around the world intermingle, the most recent common ancestor moves forward in time, by the way their simulator works.
So, the article is much more about how intermingled human populations around the world are, than it is about the actual shape of the human "family tree".
By the way there was no Ice age in the last 5000 years. The most recent Ice Age is estimated by scientists to have been at it's height 20,000 years ago.
>What's wrong with you? Do you have to be spoon fed everything?
Ah, arrogance and stupidity in one package, how efficient of you.
Let's see, so far you've been arrogant, condescending, and threatening.
And you believe that you should be accepted as an authority figure.
>>Earning a Ph.D. in the sciences generally indicates that some one is a scientist, which is why I said "reputable scientist".
>You're wrong and too proud to admit it. Read this, hopefully that settles it for you: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?.
I didn't say that they didn't publish in any refereed journals, I said that they didn't publish anything in refereed journals that supported creationism. And the referenced article doesn't list any articles supporting a young earth or creationism any refereed scientific journal. Now all you have to do is provide references to some creationism supporting articles in refereed journals.
>>You ignored... just to make your arithmetic work out.
>The arithmetic works out.
And there's a definite, non-zero probability that all the air molecules in a room will congregate in on corner long enough for every one in the room to die of asphyxiation. I've got equations to calculate that probability in one of my physics books. But, I also understand that those equations are not generally applicable in the macroscopic world.
You have to actually understand what the numbers represent, not just pick the ones that support your viewpoint. You're assuming that you can divide any age estimate that you want by 20 because one paper indicates that a certain type of genetic material isn't as highly conserved as other types. You need to go find out something about the variablity of conservation rates of genetic material, not pick the first number that appears to support your viewpoint.
>>How many variations did you try before you got it to work out?
>The beauty of what you're fighting is that it all converges. Other studies are saying the same thing....
which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known". mtDNA mutation rates can even vary dramatically within a single anscestral lineage. Which just means, more research will probably yield interesting results, none of it likely to support creationism. There's an interesting article at Talk Origins about mitochondrial DNA in fossil hominids.
>>The Family tree article doesn't say that there was only one family tree at 1415BC. It says that on average, all family trees intersect at that point, which is vastly different from what you said.
>Talk is cheap. As I said multiple times in those posts: Give me a reason how the study _disproves_ a single ancestor.
That article wasn't about "proving" or "dis-proving" a single ancestor. Why would you expect me to be able to find that in the article, when you can't find anything in the article that "proves" a single ancestor either. You're the one making the positive claim, you prove that the article supports a single ancestor, instead of what the title says "Family trees share roots in 1415BC". "share roots" isn't the same as "has a single root".
>>As far as what Newton believed in. Alchemy, Astrology and Creationism were all appropriate for his time, but just as Alchemy and Astrology have been relagated to quaint history, so has creationism.
>I warned about slandering the dead. According to this article [skepticreport.com], Newton bought books on astrology, but was "soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology". As for alchemy, that was the chemistry of the day.
The article at skepticreport.com was interesting, and had good citations. The reference that I had mentioning astrology was from a wikipedia, and apparently needs to be updated. So, that leaves alchemy and creationism, which still belong to quaint history, having been replaced by scientific theories that explain the vast majority of the evidence in the universe much more precisely.
By the way, thanks for the pointer to skepticreport.co
You ignored the "generally accepted" figure of 150,000 years BCE for the divergence of homo sapiens sapiens, then cherry picked another mutation rate, out of another article, just to make your arithmetic work out. How many variations did you try before you got it to work out? The authors of the third article specifically indicated an age of 144,000 years ago. That's not even bad science, it's right up there with the kind of stuff that Kent Hovind puts out (who Answers In Genesis has attempted to correct).
The Family tree article doesn't say that there was only one family tree at 1415BC. It says that on average, all family trees intersect at that point, which is vastly different from what you said.
As far as what Newton believed in. Alchemy, Astrology, and Creationism were all appropriate for his time, but just as Alchemy and Astrology have been relagated to quaint history, so has creationism.
Earning a Ph.D. in the sciences generally indicates that some one is a scientist, which is why I said "reputable scientist". You can read reputable to mean a scientist working to increase knowledge in his field of study and submitting his work for review by other scientists in the same field of study. And if you want lists, check out Project Steve. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_pro ject_steve_2_16_2003.asp
The 521 scientists named Steve that have signed the statement supporting the age of the earth and evolution statistically represent 52,100 scientists.
As far as some of your other "facts", dendrochronology using crossdating for bristle-cone pines has documented a continuous history for 8,200 years. There even other older living things, for example, an 11,000 year old creosote bush in the Mojave Desert, a 13,000 year old eucalyptus in Australia, a 13,000 year old Box Huckleberry in Pennsylvania, and a 43,000 year old King's Holly in Tasmania.
As far as all the flood myths, most civilizations arise around fertile river flood plains, which just happen to experience floods. There is still no evidence to support a global flood, and still an enormous amount of evidence that indicates that there never was a global flood.
No less a scientist than Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), one of the greatest thinkers and most-respected scientists of all time (a serious Bible student and scientific creationist, by the way!), accepted Ussher's chronology and a 6,000-year-old Earth implicitly.
Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy, astrology, and didn't believe in the Triune God, which would make him a heretic in some people's eyes. The last reputable scientist that defended wholesale creation of life on earth was Louis Agassiz, and even he didn't believe in the Noachian Flood. That was in the 1800's.
A "Gish Gallop" is named for Duane Gish, one of the original "creation scientists". He is associated primarily with the "Institute for Creation Research" It was his technique of galloping from one false statement about science and the age of the earth to another, without actually defending any statement. He depended upon the sheer volume of bunk to prevent any reasoned discussion about his statements. As far as I am concerned, presenting the entire Answers in Genesis web site as "evidence" is a "Gish Gallop". I asked for the single piece of evidence that you felt was most persuasive, because that's all that can be sensibly discussed at a time.
As far as what you have said that is wrong, any claim that you've made that the earth is less than about 4.5 billion years old, has no accepted scientific evidence to support it.
As I said previously, there is no claim presented at "Answers In Genesis", "Creation Evidence", or by any other creationist organization that hasn't been refuted by real scientists. If you want to examine some of those detailed refutations, Talk Origins is a decent reference. It also has links to a number of creationist web sites so you can check their references yourself. Which is an interesting thing in and of itself, and a hallmark of reasoned inquiry. How many creationist web sites have links to counter arguments?
I see. You've learned well from your "creation scientists. You start out with a "Gish Gallop" throwing out a collection of bunkum, then switch to quote mining.
Do you have any anything newer than the 16h century to support your claims? Science has made a lot of progress since then.
By the way, that quote does nothing to support your claim that the earth was created recently.
To put it simply, there is nothing that any "creation scientist" has to say that hasn't been refuted by real evidence from real scientists; you know geologists, physicists, astronomers, biologists. The bald assertions have been show to be unsupported by any real evidence. The quotations taken out of context have been cataloged and provided with context. Every piece of "evidence" for a universe that is less than 14 billion years old has been unquestionably debunked.
Why don't you pick the piece of evidence that you think best indicates the universe is 6000 years old, and I'll explain why it doesn't show that at all.
I have read most of the stuff that you sited and there is no way that it qualifies as "evidence" of a global flood. The only thing it is "evidence" of is that people are capable of incredible feats of denial of reality and cognative dissonance.
I grew up on a dryland farm in North Dakota and we rotated crops every year, and kept about 1/3 of the land fallow each year to accumulate moisture and reduce the weeds. Then I moved further east to an area that is row-crop, corn and soybeans. The fields (several different farms) around our place have been planted with corn every year but one in the last 12 years. And they're knifing in anhydrous ammonia every year. If they every knew anything about crop rotation they've forgotten it, or they're so economically distressed they no longer have a choice. I guess that I'd choose to believe the latter. And yes, I'm a typical leftist idiot. So.... what's YOUR solution?
It corroborates nothing. There was no Biblical flood. There is no evidence that supports a world wide flood, and there is an enourmous amount of evidence that contradicts a Biblical flood. To get an idea of actual scientific evidence in this area check out http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html.
The fact that I find the most interesting is that the Egygptians were busy having a civilization and were building pyramids when the flood was supposed to be happening.
Would you grant some other entity the power to create the universe?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe the Biblical account of creation. I don't mind people quesitoning that belief, and I enjoy examining it myself too... but I don't appreciate being called foolish for it.
What I was trying to get at was that I see very little resemblance between the universe as described in the Genesis and the universe that we see today. If the description of the universe in Genesis is literal, how come my interpretation of that description contradicts the present day, observed universe so badly? I've read several attempts to reconcile those descriptions and the results were... well... strained??
As far as calling you foolish, I withdraw any statement that would imply that. But, that implies nothing about accepting your position, because I don't. Which is what discussion is all about.
Or would you have the creator allow the majority of creation to provide false and confusing evidence?
I have no problem with the creator allowing creation to lead someone to believe something that isn't true.....
A straight forward answer to the question. That could lead off into the standard discussion on omniscience and omnipotence, but I'm not interested in that right now.
....This is because the response of most people to the thought that God might actually have created the earth looking old is that such would be stupid thing for God to do and would make him to be a liar.....
This is one of those places where interpretation is a problem. You seem to interpret people disagreeing with a belief that the earth was created recently as people calling God a liar. I interpret that position as someone believing that God can create the universe any way God chooses and that the position that the earth is young is a misinterpretation of scripture. A human mistake, NOT blasphemy.
As far as my own beliefs are concerned, I've taken seriously the statements from the New Testament that my beliefs are private, between my Creator and me, and Job's discussion of faith is most profound. Especially the point about having faith even if the Creator chose to make that faith fruitless (and I mean fruitless, not meaningless), I don't need a reward to do what I believe to be right.
I'll say this. Most people who have tried to convince me that evolution is true have also tried to convince me that my understanding of God is false and have held the belief that there is no absolute truth or absolute morals in the universe, that everything is relative and no one person can tell any other person if they're sinning or not.
I'll try to explain what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to shake your faith or convince you that your understanding of God is false. I think that I'm mostly trying to persuade you to ungroup the people that you call "evolutionists" into individual people. I'll grant you that there are some(not many!) people who would have every intention of destroying your faith if they could find the right words, some people are just like that. There are many more though, who are people of faith, hoping and trying to be a good person, following the religion they were raised in. They differ with you on the interpretation of parts of scripture, nothing more.
For instance, there are actually many trained and highly learned geologists and anthropologists who do *not* believe in the theory of macroevolution.
Just for variety, I'm going to challenge you on this point. I'm aware of the lists that the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis have, but are you referring to other information that would support your statement?
Your response was most reasonable, and has responses and observations that are interesting to respond to.
I think the most thought provoking thing along these lines that I've run across is a statement from one of the religious organizations. They say "Truth cannot contradict Truth". When you have facts and evidence from the world that provide you with some truth and something else that you feel is revealed Truth, that seem to be contradictory, the first thing that should be questioned is your comprehension of BOTH Truths.
I think that much of the acrimony in these discussions comes from the reluctance of people to question their comprehension of the Truth that makes them most comfortable. Which is a wholely (sic?) understandable, human failing.
Now, my own bias is to first trust the evidence of the universe as though it were the direct handiwork of the creator. Given the scope of humanity and the scope of the universe, I feel that's only appropriate. Would you grant some other entity the power to create the universe? Or would you have the creator allow the majority of creation to provide false and confusing evidence?
I don't see where questioning my comprehension of revealed Truth is "talking back to my creator". I an questioning my intrepretation and the interpretation of other humans. Every time I read something I intrepret it, and so does every other human being that I know, largely because I can learn something new each time I read it.
I do find it interesting though that you seem to be (by your choice of words) to be offended at the notion of someone talking back to their creator. I would suspect that God could deal with that situation on his own?
We (humanity) used to have lives directly filled with the evidence of the creator in the unexplainable weather, sun, moon, stars, and nature. In the few hundred years that science has been developing, we have eliminated that evidence from our daily lives by explaining it. The lightning isn't evidence of God's wrath, it's a massive movement of electrons from one place to another, brought about by the movement of water molecules through the atmosphere. The rainbow in the sky isn't something heavenly placed in the sky and then removed, it's caused by light diffracting through raindrops.
As we've lost this daily evidence to explanation, I don't think that we've found a replacement that most people can accept. Majesty and awe still exist in the universe, but it takes a different sort of understanding to find it.
I sat through a sermon titled "How Big is Your God?". I was really intrigued by the question, and in the end disappointed. The pastor stretched his understanding of God to his personal limits, but still couldn't impart an image of God big enough to have created the universe.
These observations have led me to question FIRST my comprehension of revealed truth, then the evidence of the world around me.
Just as you say that you are not a geologist, neither can I. But I'm inclined to trust that the expertise of people who've spent their working lives trying to understand the universe. Some few of them will have petty motives, some will be in error, but the system of science is self correcting because it rewards the people who find a better explanation of the evidence or point out errors in the existing explanations.
Science is fundamentally agnostic, there is nothing to be gained or lost by theorizing about God. Science is, at its core, about evidence and explanation.
As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, it is not a different kind of science from physics, chemistry, astronomy, archeology, or any of many other 'ologies. It is still about evidence and explanations. Many thousands of people spend their entire working career trying to make a meaningful contribution to their field of science. To ascribe petty motives to their life's work is almost certain to provoke a harsh reaction. And contrary to what many people who attack evolutionary biology would have you believe, many of those same scientis
I look around me and I see a visible universe that's at least 30 billion light years across, and 14.3 billion years old. I see the light that left stars that burned out before the earth even formed from the dust of dead second generation stars. I read and try to comprehend stories about cosmology that try to describe the shape of the visible universe and why at some fundamental level our universe is two dimensional....
I see tree ring records that go back over 10,000 years, ice cores that go back 720,000 years, varves that go back 13,000 years and still living plants that are over 10,000 years old.
Isochron radiometric dating also tells us that the earth is old, vastly older than the Bible indicates. Geology gives us pictures into the history of the earth that date back to the earliest solid land. The entire geological column is available in places like the Williston Basin in North Dakota or 24 other places around the world.
The vast majority of science since the Enlightenment began directly shows that any literal interpretation of the Bible and in particular the Old Testament is foolish. And against these libraries of scientific evidence, what evidence do creationists have to offer? Nothing but assertions without evidence, obfuscation, and outrage that anyone would question their position.
They yammer on about faith, when their own faith is so weak that it requires continual frantic shoring up by denouncing anything that might make them rethink their beliefs.
Now, there's something we haven't seen in at least 30 seconds... unsubstanciated assertions, and blind denials.
You provide no evidence, you just assert that it is there, and in the same sentence assert that the real evidence of the world doesn't mean anything.
Personal Incredulity is not evidence and supports no argument. If it did, my belief that no one with the mental ability greater than an iguana could believe in creationism would win the day.
The US legal system is NOT based upon religious laws. It is based on English common law which was a merger of the traditions of pagan British tribes, Roman civil law, the Angels, Saxons, and the Normans (who also had a Norse heritage), and a bit of church law. So US law has a much larger heritage from Wodin than Jehovah.
Archeological evidence produced as proof of Exodus by the man who found Noah's Ark (according to real geologists and archeologists a mineral formation), the Ark of the Covenant (that he could never actually show to anyone... how conveeennnient), and others.
You'll have to excuse me if I find the work of professional scientists, that has been cross-checked and evaluated by other professional scientists more believable.
Slashdot Mirror
While there is no OpenLDAP server configuration module in yast, all the other pieces are there. I finally boiled it down to starting with default OpenLDAP config files that are installed when you install the OpenLDAP server RPM, adding the base dn entries, and then doing one ldapadd by hand to create the "organization" level objects in the OpenLDAP database.
Once that has been done, when you use the yast2 module to configure an LDAP authentication client there a couple of dialogs where the "client" configuration will do the ldapadd operations that create the rest of the OpenLDAP directory structure on the server, then start adding clients.
I had more trouble getting the TLS stuff to work, and I'm still not certain how that it's working properly. But now on any system in my network I can add, update, and delete user and group information through the yast2 dialogs, including additional fields in the ldap schemas.
For Samba, I did have to add the Samba schema to the slapd configuration, and I wound up using smbpasswd to set some of the fields in the ldap directory.
The installation is simple enough, but the setup throws you into the deep end. The nicest part of the whole setup is that once it's up and running, it's the lowest hassle file server I've dealt with. When I need to rebuild one of the servers(distribution version upgrades mostly), I just tell OpenAFS to move everything onto other servers, rebuild the old server and move stuff back onto it without interferring with users at all.
Part of the yast2 setup for Kerberos also turns on Openafs client function. Which seems a little backward.
The Public/Private key mechanisms seem to be another layer that's stacked on top of some of the simpler authentication mechanisms. Which is why is getting OpenSSH to work with Kerberos or Kerberos with OpenAFS can be a real grind. And when OpenSSH doesn't have anyplace to retrieve the public key information from (like your home directory) because it can't prove who the user is you're reduced to entering the password for the underlying target system authentication system every time...
My impression of Kerberos is that it is more about Authentication (proving who you are) than anything else. Once you can prove who a user is, now you have another set of problems, in particular, Authorization.
If you mention using the Public/Private key stuff (like OpenSSH uses) around some of the Kerberos groups, you'll get some interesting viewpoints.
I know I've vastly over-simplifying this.
That wasn't hard.
Strange, I don't see faith in that statement anywhere. I see "assume the consensus is correct", but that's only required if you're too lazy to do the work required to have an informed opinion. And once you have that knowledge you can actually try to dispute the interpretation of the facts behind the consensus and change it.
Why did you assume I didn't have such evidence? That was neither explicit nor implicit in my statements. In fact, it was just the opposite: my statements assumed there was evidence to back up the claims, and I gave you a brief overview of some of that evidence for a particular example.
You provided an example of an issue without any citiations of the source documents or scientific data. It has every appearance of coming from some group fighting a political battle about property rights, but I can't even be certain about that because you've provided no sources.
And you seem to feel that political example is sufficient reason to label other scientific findings "bad science". While you may feel that I should assume that you have sufficient evidence to support your assertions, I am not obligated to believe that your evidence is sufficient or even supports your position without seeing that evidence.
One I did not make, again, either explicitly or implicitly
And here I would just plain disagree. The example your provided has no appearance of "bad science". But without citations, I can't really say more than it appears that there could be scientific disagreement about the issue and that the matter can't be resolved on any scientific grounds. So, that group is stuck with a messy political solution that nobody is going to be happy with.
First religion, now faith.. Interesting...
Show me where I said that you should take anything a scientist says on faith. I'll restate it more plainly. If you are unwilling/unable to spend the time required to acquire the scientific knowledge required to make informed statements, supported by evidence, about a subject you are best served by assuming the scientific consensus is correct.
One of the things that you can be certain of is that an incorrect concensus will be corrected as evidence is presented that contradicts the consensus.
That may take a while, but it has always happened, in every area of scientific endevour. And it always will happen.
Your point about the politics involved is sensible. When it becomes a political issue, all the rules change. I wasn't writing about the politics.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that someone should have an advanced degree in a particular field to speak intelligently on it. Many of our great scientists in history never had advanced degrees.
There is a profound difference between being able to speak intelligently about a field and pronouncing the work of scientists in that field as bad science without presenting evidence that supports that claim.
If you feel that the implications of the scientific consensus opinion are uacceptable for political reasons, so be it.
That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. The same class of issue as the Indiana state legislature considering a law that set the value of Pi. If the science is wrong it will be corrected, eventually.
If political actions are chosen that run counter to the scientific recommendations, they might prove the science wrong by succeeding. (Which the scientific process will use as additional evidence to support a new consensus.) If the political actions fail, then the usual political fingerpointing starts, and the scientific process takes the failure as additional data.
Viewing the scientific process solely as a political process is as much a mistake as viewing the entire decision making process as a scientific process.
However, they are "imbued" with the knowledge and competence that concentrated study in a specialized field gives them. And having their published work criticised by people who have relevant knowledge and competence.
If the scientists in a field are in disagreement about something you'll be able to tell by looking at the peer-reviewed journals. If there's a consensus about some issues in the field you'll be able to tell that too.
If there's no scientific consensus about something, anyone not doing research in the field would be best served by reserving judgement.
If there is a scientific consensus on some issue, that's the way to bet. Same as the racetrack. You can bet against the odds, but you'll almost certainly go home broker than the guys betting on the favorites.
The only other intellectually honest thing to do is to spend the time to get your own advanced degree in the field, so you can make competent statements and provide the evidence to support your position.
Where did you get your advanced degree's in any field of science?
What articles have you published, in which peer-reviewed science publications?
An omnipotent god could do that. After all, that's what omnipotent means..
Then there is the difference in chromosome numbers between chimps and humans. The difference in number is accounted for by a fusion of two chromosomes. Without that fusion, chimps and humans would have the same number of chromosomes.
And then there are hybrid fertile plants that have full copies of the chromosomes of both their parent species.
Right now I'd say those chances are in the same range as the chances of a celluloid cat, being chased by an asbestos dog, in hell.
Until enough people die, nothing substantial will be done. The remaining questions is how many deaths is going to be "enough".
My wild-ass-guess is that it'll take at least 10 million deaths due to direct, weather related, causes and agricultural failure to overcome inertia.
Hardly my newest qualifier, it was in the first statement. You know the part about
You can read reputable to mean a scientist working to increase knowledge in his field of study and submitting his work for review by other scientists in the same field of study
>They publish. The article I pointed to mentioned a few, including this one:
And this paper supports your position of a young earth exactly how? A critique of evolutionary theories of Photo synthesis hardly states that the earth is 6000 years old.
And I notice that you came up with a grand total of one citation, your 10,000 creation scientists should have thousands of publications. Unless, or course, they have no evidence that supports their theories.
>It's not one paper. There is a general trend here. I mentioned one mtDNA paper, but the AIG article mentioned several papers.
Oh, really? With the thousands of real scientific articles published each year, I'm sure that AIG can cherry pick any sort of trend they want to. After all they already know what the conclusion is.
>> which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known".
>No. It means better experiments with better intruments and more direct observations of mtDNA show mutation rates are higher than previously thought.
And that generalizes from mtDNA to all DNA mutation rates exactly how? What papers support that conclusion? It was also interesting that you left out the part of the abstract where they specified that they had chosen hypervariable segments of mtDNA to study. And in the same search, I found other papers that called for a 10 fold higher rate of mutation instead of 20 fold. And that was from a 2003 paper, Human Genetics, March 2003, PMID 12571803, which would make your "trend" go the other way.
>No. I am not the one making the "postive claim" - it is the article. It's first line reads:Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found.
And that one person was part of a human population, not Noah. There is nothing in the article that supports your statement that the single ancestor was the only ancestor. And, as the article points out toward the end, as populations around the world intermingle, the most recent common ancestor moves forward in time, by the way their simulator works.
So, the article is much more about how intermingled human populations around the world are, than it is about the actual shape of the human "family tree".
By the way there was no Ice age in the last 5000 years. The most recent Ice Age is estimated by scientists to have been at it's height 20,000 years ago.
>What's wrong with you? Do you have to be spoon fed everything?
Ah, arrogance and stupidity in one package, how efficient of you.
Let's see, so far you've been arrogant, condescending, and threatening.
And you believe that you should be accepted as an authority figure.
I'm finished with this discussion.
>You're wrong and too proud to admit it. Read this, hopefully that settles it for you: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?.
I didn't say that they didn't publish in any refereed journals, I said that they didn't publish anything in refereed journals that supported creationism. And the referenced article doesn't list any articles supporting a young earth or creationism any refereed scientific journal. Now all you have to do is provide references to some creationism supporting articles in refereed journals.
>>You ignored ... just to make your arithmetic work out.
>The arithmetic works out.
And there's a definite, non-zero probability that all the air molecules in a room will congregate in on corner long enough for every one in the room to die of asphyxiation. I've got equations to calculate that probability in one of my physics books. But, I also understand that those equations are not generally applicable in the macroscopic world.
You have to actually understand what the numbers represent, not just pick the ones that support your viewpoint. You're assuming that you can divide any age estimate that you want by 20 because one paper indicates that a certain type of genetic material isn't as highly conserved as other types. You need to go find out something about the variablity of conservation rates of genetic material, not pick the first number that appears to support your viewpoint.
>>How many variations did you try before you got it to work out?
>The beauty of what you're fighting is that it all converges. Other studies are saying the same thing ....
which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known". mtDNA mutation rates can even vary dramatically within a single anscestral lineage. Which just means, more research will probably yield interesting results, none of it likely to support creationism. There's an interesting article at Talk Origins about mitochondrial DNA in fossil hominids.
>>The Family tree article doesn't say that there was only one family tree at 1415BC. It says that on average, all family trees intersect at that point, which is vastly different from what you said.
>Talk is cheap. As I said multiple times in those posts: Give me a reason how the study _disproves_ a single ancestor.
That article wasn't about "proving" or "dis-proving" a single ancestor. Why would you expect me to be able to find that in the article, when you can't find anything in the article that "proves" a single ancestor either. You're the one making the positive claim, you prove that the article supports a single ancestor, instead of what the title says "Family trees share roots in 1415BC". "share roots" isn't the same as "has a single root".
>>As far as what Newton believed in. Alchemy, Astrology and Creationism were all appropriate for his time, but just as Alchemy and Astrology have been relagated to quaint history, so has creationism.
>I warned about slandering the dead. According to this article [skepticreport.com], Newton bought books on astrology, but was "soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology". As for alchemy, that was the chemistry of the day.
The article at skepticreport.com was interesting, and had good citations. The reference that I had mentioning astrology was from a wikipedia, and apparently needs to be updated. So, that leaves alchemy and creationism, which still belong to quaint history, having been replaced by scientific theories that explain the vast majority of the evidence in the universe much more precisely.
By the way, thanks for the pointer to skepticreport.co
You ignored the "generally accepted" figure of 150,000 years BCE for the divergence of homo sapiens sapiens, then cherry picked another mutation rate, out of another article, just to make your arithmetic work out. How many variations did you try before you got it to work out? The authors of the third article specifically indicated an age of 144,000 years ago. That's not even bad science, it's right up there with the kind of stuff that Kent Hovind puts out (who Answers In Genesis has attempted to correct).
The Family tree article doesn't say that there was only one family tree at 1415BC. It says that on average, all family trees intersect at that point, which is vastly different from what you said.
As far as what Newton believed in. Alchemy, Astrology, and Creationism were all appropriate for his time, but just as Alchemy and Astrology have been relagated to quaint history, so has creationism.
Earning a Ph.D. in the sciences generally indicates that some one is a scientist, which is why I said "reputable scientist". You can read reputable to mean a scientist working to increase knowledge in his field of study and submitting his work for review by other scientists in the same field of study. And if you want lists, check out Project Steve. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_pro ject_steve_2_16_2003.asp
The 521 scientists named Steve that have signed the statement supporting the age of the earth and evolution statistically represent 52,100 scientists.
As far as some of your other "facts", dendrochronology using crossdating for bristle-cone pines has documented a continuous history for 8,200 years. There even other older living things, for example, an 11,000 year old creosote bush in the Mojave Desert, a 13,000 year old eucalyptus in Australia, a 13,000 year old Box Huckleberry in Pennsylvania, and a 43,000 year old King's Holly in Tasmania.
As far as all the flood myths, most civilizations arise around fertile river flood plains, which just happen to experience floods. There is still no evidence to support a global flood, and still an enormous amount of evidence that indicates that there never was a global flood.
Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy, astrology, and didn't believe in the Triune God, which would make him a heretic in some people's eyes. The last reputable scientist that defended wholesale creation of life on earth was Louis Agassiz, and even he didn't believe in the Noachian Flood. That was in the 1800's.
A "Gish Gallop" is named for Duane Gish, one of the original "creation scientists". He is associated primarily with the "Institute for Creation Research" It was his technique of galloping from one false statement about science and the age of the earth to another, without actually defending any statement. He depended upon the sheer volume of bunk to prevent any reasoned discussion about his statements. As far as I am concerned, presenting the entire Answers in Genesis web site as "evidence" is a "Gish Gallop". I asked for the single piece of evidence that you felt was most persuasive, because that's all that can be sensibly discussed at a time.
As far as what you have said that is wrong, any claim that you've made that the earth is less than about 4.5 billion years old, has no accepted scientific evidence to support it.
As I said previously, there is no claim presented at "Answers In Genesis", "Creation Evidence", or by any other creationist organization that hasn't been refuted by real scientists. If you want to examine some of those detailed refutations, Talk Origins is a decent reference. It also has links to a number of creationist web sites so you can check their references yourself. Which is an interesting thing in and of itself, and a hallmark of reasoned inquiry. How many creationist web sites have links to counter arguments?
Do you have any anything newer than the 16h century to support your claims? Science has made a lot of progress since then.
By the way, that quote does nothing to support your claim that the earth was created recently.
Why don't you pick the piece of evidence that you think best indicates the universe is 6000 years old, and I'll explain why it doesn't show that at all.
I have read most of the stuff that you sited and there is no way that it qualifies as "evidence" of a global flood. The only thing it is "evidence" of is that people are capable of incredible feats of denial of reality and cognative dissonance.
I grew up on a dryland farm in North Dakota and we rotated crops every year, and kept about 1/3 of the land fallow each year to accumulate moisture and reduce the weeds. Then I moved further east to an area that is row-crop, corn and soybeans. The fields (several different farms) around our place have been planted with corn every year but one in the last 12 years. And they're knifing in anhydrous ammonia every year. If they every knew anything about crop rotation they've forgotten it, or they're so economically distressed they no longer have a choice. I guess that I'd choose to believe the latter. And yes, I'm a typical leftist idiot. So.... what's YOUR solution?
The fact that I find the most interesting is that the Egygptians were busy having a civilization and were building pyramids when the flood was supposed to be happening.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe the Biblical account of creation. I don't mind people quesitoning that belief, and I enjoy examining it myself too... but I don't appreciate being called foolish for it.
What I was trying to get at was that I see very little resemblance between the universe as described in the Genesis and the universe that we see today. If the description of the universe in Genesis is literal, how come my interpretation of that description contradicts the present day, observed universe so badly? I've read several attempts to reconcile those descriptions and the results were... well... strained??
As far as calling you foolish, I withdraw any statement that would imply that. But, that implies nothing about accepting your position, because I don't. Which is what discussion is all about.
Or would you have the creator allow the majority of creation to provide false and confusing evidence?
I have no problem with the creator allowing creation to lead someone to believe something that isn't true. ....
A straight forward answer to the question. That could lead off into the standard discussion on omniscience and omnipotence, but I'm not interested in that right now.
....This is because the response of most people to the thought that God might actually have created the earth looking old is that such would be stupid thing for God to do and would make him to be a liar.....
This is one of those places where interpretation is a problem. You seem to interpret people disagreeing with a belief that the earth was created recently as people calling God a liar. I interpret that position as someone believing that God can create the universe any way God chooses and that the position that the earth is young is a misinterpretation of scripture. A human mistake, NOT blasphemy.
As far as my own beliefs are concerned, I've taken seriously the statements from the New Testament that my beliefs are private, between my Creator and me, and Job's discussion of faith is most profound. Especially the point about having faith even if the Creator chose to make that faith fruitless (and I mean fruitless, not meaningless), I don't need a reward to do what I believe to be right.
I'll say this. Most people who have tried to convince me that evolution is true have also tried to convince me that my understanding of God is false and have held the belief that there is no absolute truth or absolute morals in the universe, that everything is relative and no one person can tell any other person if they're sinning or not.
I'll try to explain what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to shake your faith or convince you that your understanding of God is false. I think that I'm mostly trying to persuade you to ungroup the people that you call "evolutionists" into individual people. I'll grant you that there are some(not many!) people who would have every intention of destroying your faith if they could find the right words, some people are just like that. There are many more though, who are people of faith, hoping and trying to be a good person, following the religion they were raised in. They differ with you on the interpretation of parts of scripture, nothing more.
For instance, there are actually many trained and highly learned geologists and anthropologists who do *not* believe in the theory of macroevolution.
Just for variety, I'm going to challenge you on this point. I'm aware of the lists that the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis have, but are you referring to other information that would support your statement?
I think the most thought provoking thing along these lines that I've run across is a statement from one of the religious organizations. They say "Truth cannot contradict Truth". When you have facts and evidence from the world that provide you with some truth and something else that you feel is revealed Truth, that seem to be contradictory, the first thing that should be questioned is your comprehension of BOTH Truths.
I think that much of the acrimony in these discussions comes from the reluctance of people to question their comprehension of the Truth that makes them most comfortable. Which is a wholely (sic?) understandable, human failing.
Now, my own bias is to first trust the evidence of the universe as though it were the direct handiwork of the creator. Given the scope of humanity and the scope of the universe, I feel that's only appropriate. Would you grant some other entity the power to create the universe? Or would you have the creator allow the majority of creation to provide false and confusing evidence?
I don't see where questioning my comprehension of revealed Truth is "talking back to my creator". I an questioning my intrepretation and the interpretation of other humans. Every time I read something I intrepret it, and so does every other human being that I know, largely because I can learn something new each time I read it.
I do find it interesting though that you seem to be (by your choice of words) to be offended at the notion of someone talking back to their creator. I would suspect that God could deal with that situation on his own?
We (humanity) used to have lives directly filled with the evidence of the creator in the unexplainable weather, sun, moon, stars, and nature. In the few hundred years that science has been developing, we have eliminated that evidence from our daily lives by explaining it. The lightning isn't evidence of God's wrath, it's a massive movement of electrons from one place to another, brought about by the movement of water molecules through the atmosphere. The rainbow in the sky isn't something heavenly placed in the sky and then removed, it's caused by light diffracting through raindrops.
As we've lost this daily evidence to explanation, I don't think that we've found a replacement that most people can accept. Majesty and awe still exist in the universe, but it takes a different sort of understanding to find it.
I sat through a sermon titled "How Big is Your God?". I was really intrigued by the question, and in the end disappointed. The pastor stretched his understanding of God to his personal limits, but still couldn't impart an image of God big enough to have created the universe.
These observations have led me to question FIRST my comprehension of revealed truth, then the evidence of the world around me.
Just as you say that you are not a geologist, neither can I. But I'm inclined to trust that the expertise of people who've spent their working lives trying to understand the universe. Some few of them will have petty motives, some will be in error, but the system of science is self correcting because it rewards the people who find a better explanation of the evidence or point out errors in the existing explanations.
Science is fundamentally agnostic, there is nothing to be gained or lost by theorizing about God. Science is, at its core, about evidence and explanation.
As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, it is not a different kind of science from physics, chemistry, astronomy, archeology, or any of many other 'ologies. It is still about evidence and explanations. Many thousands of people spend their entire working career trying to make a meaningful contribution to their field of science. To ascribe petty motives to their life's work is almost certain to provoke a harsh reaction. And contrary to what many people who attack evolutionary biology would have you believe, many of those same scientis
I see tree ring records that go back over 10,000 years, ice cores that go back 720,000 years, varves that go back 13,000 years and still living plants that are over 10,000 years old.
Isochron radiometric dating also tells us that the earth is old, vastly older than the Bible indicates. Geology gives us pictures into the history of the earth that date back to the earliest solid land. The entire geological column is available in places like the Williston Basin in North Dakota or 24 other places around the world.
The vast majority of science since the Enlightenment began directly shows that any literal interpretation of the Bible and in particular the Old Testament is foolish. And against these libraries of scientific evidence, what evidence do creationists have to offer? Nothing but assertions without evidence, obfuscation, and outrage that anyone would question their position.
They yammer on about faith, when their own faith is so weak that it requires continual frantic shoring up by denouncing anything that might make them rethink their beliefs.
You provide no evidence, you just assert that it is there, and in the same sentence assert that the real evidence of the world doesn't mean anything.
Personal Incredulity is not evidence and supports no argument. If it did, my belief that no one with the mental ability greater than an iguana could believe in creationism would win the day.
The US legal system is NOT based upon religious laws. It is based on English common law which was a merger of the traditions of pagan British tribes, Roman civil law, the Angels, Saxons, and the Normans (who also had a Norse heritage), and a bit of church law. So US law has a much larger heritage from Wodin than Jehovah.
Archeological evidence produced as proof of Exodus by the man who found Noah's Ark (according to real geologists and archeologists a mineral formation), the Ark of the Covenant (that he could never actually show to anyone... how conveeennnient), and others.
You'll have to excuse me if I find the work of professional scientists, that has been cross-checked and evaluated by other professional scientists more believable.