I can't tell you until we discover energy life. I can tell you that my watch is too complex to arise on its own and that biological life is orders of magnitude more complex than my watch.
You seem to be falling under the same break in thought that alot of Creationists fall into. Namely, that Evolution explains how life began. It doesn't. Evolution has never been touted to explain how life began. Only how life, once it had already started, got to where it is now.
I couldn't agree with you more. That is what Darwin's Theory states.
The other statements you make are assumptions to fit the theory of evolution an not based on fact. We need to take the evidence we have and create the theory, not let the theory create the evidence.
In point 2 I was showing that ID covers a lot more than how life began. It is the study of science that shows us how we can determine if something was designed by an intelligense. I probably should have used an example that more parallels evolution. I apologize.
Microevolution is a single species changing over time. Macroevolution is one species changing into a new species.
With your example of small fingers on the leading edge of wings, that would be a good argument against ID as it does not appear to suit any purpose. That evidense suggest randomness more than design.
I agree, evolution does not state how life started, only how it changes. You can believe God created everything and then let it evolve. That does not go against evolution.
Some fragments of DNA were found in supposedly 80 million year-old dinosaur bones. This means that the dinosaur bones are only a couple of thousand years old.
There is a serious lack of transitional fossils. For evolution to occur, practically every fossil would be transitional. Most of the fossils that have been labeled as transitional are simply varieties of a particular kind of creature.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There is no evidence of direct ancestor-descendant relationships.
The Cambrian explosion happened at the same time all over the world, not in one isolated spot as evolution would suggest.
We have approximately 250,000 different fossil species to date.
Sharks have not changed for millions of years.
Crocodiles have not changed for millions of years.
Kingdom, Order, Class, Family, Phylum, Genus, Species. It can be shown by the fossil record that all Phylums of mammals existed during or before the Cambrian period.
The earliest bird fossils to date go back to the Jurasic Period, being approximately 150 million years old.
Most dinosaur fossils can be carbon dated to around 15,000 BC.
Other dating methods are based on several assumptions. Here are a few for radioactive dating methods:
The rate of decay of the radioactive material has been constant for billions of years.
The animal has not been altered in any way over time.
We know how much of that radioisotope that the animal had when it died.
If you have an unknown substance dated in three different labs using the same method, you will get three greatly different results.
Of course my argument doesn't make any sense, but then again I'm not alone here.
That's the problem with macroevolution, the arguments don't make any sense. They are usually based on two facts:
Microevolution - where one species changes over time. This is easily seen by observing that babies are not the same as their parents. It has been observed, hypothesized, tested, and retested. At this point it is considered scientific fact and I would not disagree with it.
People don't want to believe in a god. Once you believe in a god their is someone who is above you and to whom you are held accountable. This is aweful news. Anything we can do to rule this out must be done so that we can be in complete control of our lives.
If you wish to be scientific as most people claim, start out by not making the assumption that there is or that there is not a god. Find all the evidence that you can about life. Study the fossil record. Study DNA. Study proteins, cells, astronomy, etc. After researching this information, and not just what comes from the media, then use it to make a hypothesis of how you came to exist. Then go back and do the best to test that hypothesis through further research.
I used to be a big supporter of macroevolution. That is until I started studying it. I wanted to find out all I could about it. The more I researched it the less believable it became until it got to the point where I found so much information against it that only one conclusion can be reached. It is simply not true.
I don't know how much you have studied the fossil record so I will go into a brief overview for you. The first fossils were single celled organisms. They lived during the Precambian period. Then we had what we call the Cambrian explosion, where all other life that we know of came into existance. Since then we have had continuous extinctions of species. Some estimate 100,000 species go extinct every year.
From this fossil record of ours a couple questions come up:
How did the first single celled organisms come to be?
What happened during the Cambrian explosion that cause all these higher forms of life to come into existance?
You are welcome to believe that the first single celled organisms appeared due to primordial uze combined with lightnign or an asteroid or volcanoes if you wish. You are also welcome to believe that the Cambrian explosion occurred due to random chance, natural selection, and time if you wish.
You were probably tought in school that history of life looked something like a tree continuously expanded. The fossil record, however, looks more like an arrow, with the single celled organisms as the shaft, the Cambrian explosion as the big section of the point, and present day as the tip coming closer and closer to a point as species die out.
You're incorrect. The problem with ID is that the Intelligent Designer in question can potentially be omnipotent and omniscient. Indeed, most proponents of ID are Christians that believe that an all-powerful, all-seeing God created the Universe.
ID does not deal with the qualities of the designer. It does not state that life is created by an omnipotent and omniscient God. It simply states that life as we know it was designed. This could be by an omnipotent and omniscient God, or it could be by some advanced aliens from our neighboring solar system that are a lifeform based on energy and look like something from Star Trek. Either one is feasable with ID.
All ID does is use science to show that things were designed. This includes life, flowers, cars, watches, PDAs, etc. Would you care to debate whether or not your PDA was designed? I bet we can show scientifically that it was.
The biggest problem with ID is that it doesn't follow the scientific method.
As far as I remember, the scientific method has 4 steps:
Observation
Hypothesis
Testing
Repeat of testing by others
For Intelligent Design (ID) let's take an airplane as an example. We observe that it is fairly complex and appears to be well suited for flying. We hypothesize that a person designed the airplane to fly. We test this by finding the person or people who did design it. We have others repeat this test. We have then proven ID for the airplane. Someone did design it.
Let's look at macro-evolution (one species evolving to another species) now. First, nobody has ever whitnessed macro-evolution. We hypothesize that life on earth came into existance randomly over long periods of time. We are unable to test this as we have never observed this. Others are not able to duplicate our test as we cannot test.
Looking at these two examples, it becomes very clear to me that ID is valid science while macro-evolution is faith-based. I'm sure this information will anger many here on/. as it goes against your faith. For that I appologize. However, I have yet to hear of anyone ever observing macro-evolution. If anyone can show me where this hase been observed, I will gladly accept that macro-evolution could be scientific.
I have a two year old son who I let watch PG movies as most of these movies are acceptible in my eyes for him to watch. I do not let him watch PG-13, R, or higher rated movies.
Now from the arguments people are making about the rating, I should be crucified for letting my son watch PG rated movies because he is under the recommended age.
Now while my guess is this lady is suing as she see's an opportunity to make some money, I don't believe the argument that she made the wrong decision based on the rating is valid.
As a responsible parent, one of the ways I look after my children is by trying to get legislation passed that helps protect them from pornography when they are at Timmy's, at the public library, or at school. Without laws that give them a chance of innocence I am required to home school them, select their friends, always be with them, etc.
Law is a way to legislate morallity. Ever law that is passed is to regulate morallity or to support the government. What we as Americans must do is decide what is moral and set those morals as our standards.
One baseline I would suggest for morallity is to be able to allow our kids to go to school or to a friends house and know that they are safe.
Since most of the posts appear to be on gay marriage, let's discuss that. Gay marriage has been legal in the United States since this great country was founded. You are not descrimenated based on your sexual preference. A gay man and a gay woman are free to get married to each other just as a straight man and a straight woman can. A great fictional example would be on Friends when a straight man and a lesbian were married...perfectly legal.
Remember, Dell's main market is not geeks (who will build their computer from scratch anyway), it is the mass market.
The mass market for servers is probably a little more geekish than that for home based PC's. As someone who decides what servers we use, I prefer AMD based machines for obvious reasons. What's not so clear to everyone is that it is beneficial for a company to stick with one supplier to minimize costs in support, etc.
If Dell were to offer AMD based servers, I would be all over it. As it is I struggle with switching from Dell to CDW or some other supplier simply to get a better AMD based solution. That would mean I now need to deal with at least two companies for computer support and purchases. I'm sure Dell has to make a similar decision with Intel/AMD
By your comments I would think that if the government provides access to it then the government should allow access to all of it, including your personal email for everyone to view, logs of your Internet activity, access to your bank account via online banking, etc.
Also, I would think preventing children from seeing pornography would fall under protecting children.
Texas is not required to provide you access to pornography. That is not part of the First Amendment. It is not illegal for them not to provide you access to pornography. You may get your pornography from a long list of providers. Texas does not need to be one of them.
I love our nation's constitution and don't care to move at this time. I am proud to live in a country where I am allowed to speek what is on my mind. Forums such as/. are made possible via this freedom.
On a last note, I find it funny how porn always seems to fall under free speech while God or Christ falls under separation of church and state. Anything immoral - freedom of speech...anything rightous - must be banned.
Texas is providing a public service. It is providing access to a portion of the Internet. If you are in Texas at a rest stop and do not want to use Texas's public service, you do not need to. You are free to use your own Internet connection and access all of the Internet. They are not blocking free speech. They are providing access to terabytes of data.
Everyone screams of censorship and first amendment rights whenever something like this occurs. Why not thank Texas for providing access? It seems like anytime anyone blocks access to porn it's unconstitutional? I don't know anywhere in the first amendment where it states that everyone should have access to digital porn.
As a game developer and as a parent I have to say I'm very pleased with the rating system. It informs the parent's of the content as well as rewards developers for limiting the amount of graphic violence, sex, etc. by informing the public and letting them decide what they want to play.
An interesting side-note: G rated movies sell better than all other movies.
I read somewhere that Intel's dual core Pentium Extreme Edition would require water cooling. I don't see why anyone would want this chip right now. It's like sitting on an extremely expensive time bomb waiting to burn up. I'm sure it will bump up the price of the computer a grand or more and not provide any real benefit to the user.
Until software catches up, the main place we will benefit from multi-core processors are servers and high-end workstations where the software is multi-threaded and designed to support multiple processors already. AMD's got Intel beat on this one.
What a joke! Macro-evolution has to be the biggest lie that is being passed around the public as fact. It's not science. It's barely a false hypothesis.
- For it to be scientific you must first start with observation. So far no one has observed evolution (one species changing into another).
- Second, we must have a hypothesis based on the observeration. Well, we do have a hypothesis.
- Third, it must be tested. Hmmm...haven't done this. Haven't even seen evolution yet.
- Forth, others must duplicate your findings. Hasn't been done either.
I would call evolution more of a faith than fact. I especially would not call it science as it has not even gone through the scientific method.
There are multiple areas where evolution can be disproven or strongly argued against. We have the archeology, the fossil record, intelligent design, biology, etc.
Just one example with the fossil record. What we have seen in text books it should look like a tree. However in reality we have a bunch of single cell organizisms. Then we have the Cambrian explosion when all other life came to be. Since then we have only had extinctions, no new species. We even have fossil records of humans existing at the same time as dinosaurs at the same time as all other creatures. Hmmm...
http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionofl ife.html
I find it funny that there are complaints about supply when they sell out and worries about systems failing when they don't sell out. How does a gaming system manufacturer win?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell you until we discover energy life. I can tell you that my watch is too complex to arise on its own and that biological life is orders of magnitude more complex than my watch.
I couldn't agree with you more. That is what Darwin's Theory states.
The other statements you make are assumptions to fit the theory of evolution an not based on fact. We need to take the evidence we have and create the theory, not let the theory create the evidence.
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all work processes ten towards a greater entropy (disorder/lower energy density) over time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermod ynamics
With that being said, evolution states that life has gone from disorder to order, violating this law of science.
In point 2 I was showing that ID covers a lot more than how life began. It is the study of science that shows us how we can determine if something was designed by an intelligense. I probably should have used an example that more parallels evolution. I apologize.
Microevolution is a single species changing over time. Macroevolution is one species changing into a new species.
With your example of small fingers on the leading edge of wings, that would be a good argument against ID as it does not appear to suit any purpose. That evidense suggest randomness more than design.
I agree, evolution does not state how life started, only how it changes. You can believe God created everything and then let it evolve. That does not go against evolution.
Here's some intersting facts about fossils:
LOL! Too funny!
That's the problem with macroevolution, the arguments don't make any sense. They are usually based on two facts:
If you wish to be scientific as most people claim, start out by not making the assumption that there is or that there is not a god. Find all the evidence that you can about life. Study the fossil record. Study DNA. Study proteins, cells, astronomy, etc. After researching this information, and not just what comes from the media, then use it to make a hypothesis of how you came to exist. Then go back and do the best to test that hypothesis through further research.
I used to be a big supporter of macroevolution. That is until I started studying it. I wanted to find out all I could about it. The more I researched it the less believable it became until it got to the point where I found so much information against it that only one conclusion can be reached. It is simply not true.
I don't know how much you have studied the fossil record so I will go into a brief overview for you. The first fossils were single celled organisms. They lived during the Precambian period. Then we had what we call the Cambrian explosion, where all other life that we know of came into existance. Since then we have had continuous extinctions of species. Some estimate 100,000 species go extinct every year.
From this fossil record of ours a couple questions come up:
You are welcome to believe that the first single celled organisms appeared due to primordial uze combined with lightnign or an asteroid or volcanoes if you wish. You are also welcome to believe that the Cambrian explosion occurred due to random chance, natural selection, and time if you wish.
You were probably tought in school that history of life looked something like a tree continuously expanded. The fossil record, however, looks more like an arrow, with the single celled organisms as the shaft, the Cambrian explosion as the big section of the point, and present day as the tip coming closer and closer to a point as species die out.
ID does not deal with the qualities of the designer. It does not state that life is created by an omnipotent and omniscient God. It simply states that life as we know it was designed. This could be by an omnipotent and omniscient God, or it could be by some advanced aliens from our neighboring solar system that are a lifeform based on energy and look like something from Star Trek. Either one is feasable with ID.
All ID does is use science to show that things were designed. This includes life, flowers, cars, watches, PDAs, etc. Would you care to debate whether or not your PDA was designed? I bet we can show scientifically that it was.
As far as I remember, the scientific method has 4 steps:
For Intelligent Design (ID) let's take an airplane as an example. We observe that it is fairly complex and appears to be well suited for flying. We hypothesize that a person designed the airplane to fly. We test this by finding the person or people who did design it. We have others repeat this test. We have then proven ID for the airplane. Someone did design it.
Let's look at macro-evolution (one species evolving to another species) now. First, nobody has ever whitnessed macro-evolution. We hypothesize that life on earth came into existance randomly over long periods of time. We are unable to test this as we have never observed this. Others are not able to duplicate our test as we cannot test.
Looking at these two examples, it becomes very clear to me that ID is valid science while macro-evolution is faith-based. I'm sure this information will anger many here on /. as it goes against your faith. For that I appologize. However, I have yet to hear of anyone ever observing macro-evolution. If anyone can show me where this hase been observed, I will gladly accept that macro-evolution could be scientific.
With the revenue from this tax, perhaps we could lower income tax some more. That could put some money back in all of our pockets.
I'm going to play devil's advocate with this one.
I have a two year old son who I let watch PG movies as most of these movies are acceptible in my eyes for him to watch. I do not let him watch PG-13, R, or higher rated movies.
Now from the arguments people are making about the rating, I should be crucified for letting my son watch PG rated movies because he is under the recommended age.
Now while my guess is this lady is suing as she see's an opportunity to make some money, I don't believe the argument that she made the wrong decision based on the rating is valid.
As a responsible parent, one of the ways I look after my children is by trying to get legislation passed that helps protect them from pornography when they are at Timmy's, at the public library, or at school. Without laws that give them a chance of innocence I am required to home school them, select their friends, always be with them, etc.
Law is a way to legislate morallity. Ever law that is passed is to regulate morallity or to support the government. What we as Americans must do is decide what is moral and set those morals as our standards.
One baseline I would suggest for morallity is to be able to allow our kids to go to school or to a friends house and know that they are safe.
Since most of the posts appear to be on gay marriage, let's discuss that. Gay marriage has been legal in the United States since this great country was founded. You are not descrimenated based on your sexual preference. A gay man and a gay woman are free to get married to each other just as a straight man and a straight woman can. A great fictional example would be on Friends when a straight man and a lesbian were married...perfectly legal.
The mass market for servers is probably a little more geekish than that for home based PC's. As someone who decides what servers we use, I prefer AMD based machines for obvious reasons. What's not so clear to everyone is that it is beneficial for a company to stick with one supplier to minimize costs in support, etc.
If Dell were to offer AMD based servers, I would be all over it. As it is I struggle with switching from Dell to CDW or some other supplier simply to get a better AMD based solution. That would mean I now need to deal with at least two companies for computer support and purchases. I'm sure Dell has to make a similar decision with Intel/AMD
By your comments I would think that if the government provides access to it then the government should allow access to all of it, including your personal email for everyone to view, logs of your Internet activity, access to your bank account via online banking, etc. Also, I would think preventing children from seeing pornography would fall under protecting children. Texas is not required to provide you access to pornography. That is not part of the First Amendment. It is not illegal for them not to provide you access to pornography. You may get your pornography from a long list of providers. Texas does not need to be one of them. I love our nation's constitution and don't care to move at this time. I am proud to live in a country where I am allowed to speek what is on my mind. Forums such as /. are made possible via this freedom.
On a last note, I find it funny how porn always seems to fall under free speech while God or Christ falls under separation of church and state. Anything immoral - freedom of speech...anything rightous - must be banned.
Texas is providing a public service. It is providing access to a portion of the Internet. If you are in Texas at a rest stop and do not want to use Texas's public service, you do not need to. You are free to use your own Internet connection and access all of the Internet. They are not blocking free speech. They are providing access to terabytes of data.
Everyone screams of censorship and first amendment rights whenever something like this occurs. Why not thank Texas for providing access? It seems like anytime anyone blocks access to porn it's unconstitutional? I don't know anywhere in the first amendment where it states that everyone should have access to digital porn.
Perhaps we should change the definition of the meter? Or perhaps we should switch to standard units.
LOL, too funny! Her work had to start somewhere though.
As a game developer and as a parent I have to say I'm very pleased with the rating system. It informs the parent's of the content as well as rewards developers for limiting the amount of graphic violence, sex, etc. by informing the public and letting them decide what they want to play.
An interesting side-note: G rated movies sell better than all other movies.
I read somewhere that Intel's dual core Pentium Extreme Edition would require water cooling. I don't see why anyone would want this chip right now. It's like sitting on an extremely expensive time bomb waiting to burn up. I'm sure it will bump up the price of the computer a grand or more and not provide any real benefit to the user. Until software catches up, the main place we will benefit from multi-core processors are servers and high-end workstations where the software is multi-threaded and designed to support multiple processors already. AMD's got Intel beat on this one.
Geeks have all the fun!
Anyone remember "I'm Just a Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock?
What a joke! Macro-evolution has to be the biggest lie that is being passed around the public as fact. It's not science. It's barely a false hypothesis. - For it to be scientific you must first start with observation. So far no one has observed evolution (one species changing into another). - Second, we must have a hypothesis based on the observeration. Well, we do have a hypothesis. - Third, it must be tested. Hmmm...haven't done this. Haven't even seen evolution yet. - Forth, others must duplicate your findings. Hasn't been done either. I would call evolution more of a faith than fact. I especially would not call it science as it has not even gone through the scientific method. There are multiple areas where evolution can be disproven or strongly argued against. We have the archeology, the fossil record, intelligent design, biology, etc. Just one example with the fossil record. What we have seen in text books it should look like a tree. However in reality we have a bunch of single cell organizisms. Then we have the Cambrian explosion when all other life came to be. Since then we have only had extinctions, no new species. We even have fossil records of humans existing at the same time as dinosaurs at the same time as all other creatures. Hmmm... http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionofl ife.html
I find it funny that there are complaints about supply when they sell out and worries about systems failing when they don't sell out. How does a gaming system manufacturer win?