Why do you assume that the earth and the moon are that old? There is not a shred of hard evidence that shows the age of anything to be that old. You believe that propaganda just as much as theologists believe everything was created. It's not different.
If we are just going on propaganda/belief and not on hard evidence, then I say the bulge in the moon is actually a slow forming pimple, ready to pop and spew molten moon pimple juices all over the earth.
GAG.
I implemented a wireless network of 6 AP's spread over a very large building and I didn't have any troubles with it. I would PERSONALLY run cables to desktops and let all laptops be wireless. But i f you were going to do wireless all the way, I'd use the Cisco access points and use TKIP as an authentication/encryption mechanism. You should be able to authenticate against an Active Directory server if you have one. The reason I say use the cisco's is because they are solid as a rock and have alot of security features you can implement as well as vlanning. They are nice but expensive at $600 each. Each AP should be able to safely handle 20-25 users which should reduce your AP needs to around 4. Now they may be able to handle more, I have never had them maxed out...I'd check on the limits of the Cisco before I got one.
It's the old "SCOTTIE" trick. They say they need until the 10th to test and patch and make sure it works and then they WOW us by being able to release it early. They had it ready before now, they are just trying to salvage what little they have out of this fiasco.
Ok, I've done a little research into Evolutionary Programming and Evolutionary Algorithms. Exactly what good has it done? What I'm reading shows a method of simulating the evolutionary process in a computer. But so what, you can make a computer do anything you want.
But here is something even more interesting. The information I found on EP and EA says, "In nature, we see that the encoding for genetic information (GENOME) is done in a way that admits asexual REPRODUCTION. Asexual reproduction typically results in OFFSPRING that are genetically identical to the PARENT."
But then on the same page it says "Evolution, by definition, absolutely requires diversity in order to work. In nature, an important source of diversity is MUTATION." Now, according to the dictionary, the definition of MUTATION is "A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type." It seems to me that single celled organisms from the billions of years ago that evolutionist promote would have never produced anything but the same exact cell. Mutation would have never happened because the genetic material would have always been produced asexually. This is all based on what I read at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ai-faq/genetic/part2/sect ion-1.html. Now I'm sure from here there are obviously "outside forces" that would cause mutation. And I'm sure there are others. But there may also be "outside forces" that would protect a species from mutation. Point being, you can't quantify everything.
You may have a point that ID doesn't really contribute anything SCIENTIFICALLY, I don't know, but I don't think that is the goal of ID. I think ID is an approach to the origins of life that allows for a creator and not a haphazard glop of primordial ooze. But I don't see evidence that the study of evolution has produced any scientifically usablility either. You can tell me that "we have found this cure", or "we have discovered this process" due to evolution. But that's just you saying that. I want to hear from the group that discovered it to tell me and prove to me that some evolutionary process helped them in discovering what they found.
Now don't get the impression that I know alot about evolution or Intellegent Design. I'm actually a Creationist. I believe the God of the Bible created the universe and all that is in it. The same God that Washington, Adams, and Lincoln prayed to and asked for wisdom with the running of this country. Which is why this is the greatest country on the planet. I don't waste valuable time on either approach. ID'ers are just tiptoeing around what they really want to say. But I like the idea of ID because it is a way to approach the atheist evolutionist that wouldn't believe a god created anything. Alot of atheist evolutionist think that ID'ers or creationist are morons that blindly believe something that has no proof. So for a creationist to approach an evolutionist would be of no merit. I've noticed alot of evolutionist pre-judge creationist and ID'ers. I know this because I'm an ex-evolutionist and an ex-athiest. But anyway, I digress because I'm getting off the subject. I'll not continue this bantor with you. I appreciate you're input though, I've discovered something I didn't know before.
Cheers
The bigger issue here is that regardless of how they get the embryos, though artificial fertilization or embryo harvesting, the point is that embryonic stem cell research has produced little if any benefical results. I read a few months ago about how they were able to use ADULT stem cells to repair a mans vision. And now this posting on/. I haven't heard the first report about a significant benefit from harvesting immature embryonic stem cells. That's my only point. As far as demand supply goes, if you offer money, people will do whatever it takes to get it. Even if it desimates basic moral principals.
Well that wouldn't do any good because you are placing adult stem cell research and ID into the same group. Stem cell research does not hinge on Evolution or vise versa. Typically, ID'ers believe stem cell research is beneficial, ADULT stem cell research. And the evidence shows that adult stem cell research has produced fabulous results. It's the embryonic stem cell research that most ID'ers don't agree with because it destroys a human life. As a side note though, embryonic stem cell research has done nothing more than end human life. It hasn't really shown itself to be useful yet.
Oh you found that information out today? Did you do that research yourself or did you read the published paper of a left-winged evolutionist? Don't you think that a scientist with an egenda will falsify their findings to promote their own agenda. This whole ID vs Evolution debate isn't about truth, it's about an agenda. That's what it's always been about and that's what it'll always be about. And yes, a creationist would probably lie to. The problem is that a creationist is probably a christian and should be making an effort to obey the moral principals put forth by his/her faith, whereas a evolutionist is probably NOT a christian and has no moral boundries which he cannot cross. Anyway, I have become weary replying to all of you/.ers and I cannot do it anymore. I will digress any further flames and leave you in peace.
God be with you.
You are basing your entire primse on what you experience. There are 12 mathematically provable dimensions. But those are just numbers on paper. It's nothing we have the ability to experience. To some a 12th dimension is a non-reality, therefore it doesn't exist. But the existance and non-extance of anything doesn't hinge on if we experience it or not. But I digress. This discussion will go no where because, as I have said, the ID vs Evolution debate isn't a persuit of truth, it's a persuit of an agenda. If it were a persuit of truth there wouldn't be so much heat involved. This coming from a previous Evolutionist and Athiest, Me.
I'm glad you have enjoyed my postings, but I've become tired from responding. As I am not a professional debater, I must stop these replys tonight. It was nice dicussing with you.
So you're telling me that you're comparing computer programming to the INFINITLY more complex biological processes? We can't even cure the common cold and you think we can scientifically figure out where we came from???
And why are you skewing off into a tangent about computer programming anyway. I never said the concept of evolution is evil or wrong. It's a very good concept, but not in the context of having a species change to another one. That's the WRONG DIRECTION I'm talking about.
Cheers
What are you talking about? Newtons LAW of universal gravitation is just that, a LAW. Gravitation isn't a theory. It appears that your arguments are fueled by some deep hatred of "reglious dogma". I don't wish to continue fueling your already hateful nature towards God and Christians.
Cheers
Well, you can look at ID as leading no where. Maybe it does lead to nothing greater. Maybe it's an anchor to hold on to. But I could look at Evolution as leading somewhere WRONG.
Didn't people use to believe the world was flat. Now there's a debate worth getting into 700 years ago. Science of 700 years ago said the earth was flat. And science of 100 years later said "no freaking way". And now, 700 years in the future (pending other plans) people may just look at evolutionist and say "no freaking way" about what they thought. You see, science is within itself a flawed and fallible HUMAN tool. And it's a flawed human tool used by flawed fallible humans.
Cheers
Cool. So you really CAN'T stereotype people. And this whole time I was thinking the conservative colleges were just puking out a bunch of conservative, Bush loving, Mindless minons when in fact. You just can't tell at all.
Cheers
Well, I can see what you mean. I just love the way the public school has become such a better place since Prayer and God were removed. Violence, shootings, fear, hate. It's all quite nice isn't it. And yes, you can pinpoint the decline in schools at the point at which God and Prayer were removed from them.
Flame on.
As I stated, and as is stated in the very document you linked me to:
"The age-old battle between the beliefs of creation science and evolution brought itself to UT last Saturday, as representatives of both sides debated one of the most polarizing questions in our culture."
Evolution is as much a BELIEF as creationism is.
It's a description of a process? How can you say it's a description of a process? They don't even know what process they are talking about. It's like trying to describe the process of an apple becoming an orange. It doesn't happen, how can you describe something that doesn't happen. It a description of a BELIEF in a process that is vaguely understood in the first place. Again I say, if evolution were a real process, what need would there be of a debate anyway.
Flame on.
Yes, and there was also a HUGE community of people that believed in the cult leader Jim Jones in the late 70's called "Peoples Temple" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Temple that caused the death of over 900 people. Just because a bunch of people are following something doesn't make it correct. Again, my point is that all this stuff is based on a BELIEF. Science if fallible and don't you think that a left winged "scientist" would alter their findings in favor of evolution just as much as a creationist scientist might alter their findings in favor of creationism. The problem is that a christian scientist is SUPPOSE to be abiding by the moral laws set forth by his/her own belief. A evolutionary scientist has no contrants to control what he/she lies or speaks truthfully about. Again I say, this is all rooted in the question "what do you believe".
Flame on!
Tis true. Even the Bible says "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'" If you have said there is not God within yourself, then proof is not what you are looking for. You are not interested in truth, only your agenda at that point. The real search for truth is not in you. And so the flame burns on.
Ok, yet this "scientific fact" as you call it is still under heavy fire. If it were fact, why is there still a debate. If it were fact, it would be like someone debating against the Law of Gravity.
It's a belief man, admit it. Just as ID is a belief. And again I say, the whole ID vs Evolution debate isn't about the origin of man. It's about the existance of God.
Why is it that all/.ers will fill up a thousand comments on something concerning ID or Evolution (which most have a vague concept of anyway). But they have nothing to say when a new discovery is made in robotics, or the new PERL 6, or hydrogen powered vehicles. People don't care about it unless there is flame behind it. People love conflict. If you didn't have conflict over one thing it would be another.
People that make the assumption that ID or Evolution are mindless, moronic concepts are in grave error. Chritian ID advocates BELIEVE that evolution is a dumb and mindless concept. It is not so. Alot of thought went into it. Evolutionist BELIEVE that ID is a dumb and mindless concept. Again, it isn't dumb and mindless. Alot of thought went into it. Both of these extreams have very intellegent (more so than us/.ers) people that believe in them. And both concepts are a BELIEF. If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF.
ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God. And that battle rages on, just as it always has in the past, and just as it will continue to in the future.
For those that think that ID is a dumb idea, why not do a little research instead of being so left winged.
http://www.drdino.com/
But again, this whole battle is about a belief so there will never be a resolution.
Flame On!
I know how to control the spread of AIDS. Stop having loose sex and sharing hypodermic needles. Then those that need blood transfusions will have less likely a chance of getting it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you assume that the earth and the moon are that old? There is not a shred of hard evidence that shows the age of anything to be that old. You believe that propaganda just as much as theologists believe everything was created. It's not different. If we are just going on propaganda/belief and not on hard evidence, then I say the bulge in the moon is actually a slow forming pimple, ready to pop and spew molten moon pimple juices all over the earth. GAG.
I implemented a wireless network of 6 AP's spread over a very large building and I didn't have any troubles with it. I would PERSONALLY run cables to desktops and let all laptops be wireless. But i f you were going to do wireless all the way, I'd use the Cisco access points and use TKIP as an authentication/encryption mechanism. You should be able to authenticate against an Active Directory server if you have one. The reason I say use the cisco's is because they are solid as a rock and have alot of security features you can implement as well as vlanning. They are nice but expensive at $600 each. Each AP should be able to safely handle 20-25 users which should reduce your AP needs to around 4. Now they may be able to handle more, I have never had them maxed out...I'd check on the limits of the Cisco before I got one.
Jason
Only M$ can give it's customers the chance to test. WOW. I am so freakin impressed. I'm writing my check for vista right NOW!
It's the old "SCOTTIE" trick. They say they need until the 10th to test and patch and make sure it works and then they WOW us by being able to release it early. They had it ready before now, they are just trying to salvage what little they have out of this fiasco.
Ok, I've done a little research into Evolutionary Programming and Evolutionary Algorithms. Exactly what good has it done? What I'm reading shows a method of simulating the evolutionary process in a computer. But so what, you can make a computer do anything you want.
t ion-1.html. Now I'm sure from here there are obviously "outside forces" that would cause mutation. And I'm sure there are others. But there may also be "outside forces" that would protect a species from mutation. Point being, you can't quantify everything.
But here is something even more interesting. The information I found on EP and EA says, "In nature, we see that the encoding for genetic information (GENOME) is done in a way that admits asexual REPRODUCTION. Asexual reproduction typically results in OFFSPRING that are genetically identical to the PARENT."
But then on the same page it says "Evolution, by definition, absolutely requires diversity in order to work. In nature, an important source of diversity is MUTATION." Now, according to the dictionary, the definition of MUTATION is "A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type." It seems to me that single celled organisms from the billions of years ago that evolutionist promote would have never produced anything but the same exact cell. Mutation would have never happened because the genetic material would have always been produced asexually. This is all based on what I read at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ai-faq/genetic/part2/sec
You may have a point that ID doesn't really contribute anything SCIENTIFICALLY, I don't know, but I don't think that is the goal of ID. I think ID is an approach to the origins of life that allows for a creator and not a haphazard glop of primordial ooze. But I don't see evidence that the study of evolution has produced any scientifically usablility either. You can tell me that "we have found this cure", or "we have discovered this process" due to evolution. But that's just you saying that. I want to hear from the group that discovered it to tell me and prove to me that some evolutionary process helped them in discovering what they found.
Now don't get the impression that I know alot about evolution or Intellegent Design. I'm actually a Creationist. I believe the God of the Bible created the universe and all that is in it. The same God that Washington, Adams, and Lincoln prayed to and asked for wisdom with the running of this country. Which is why this is the greatest country on the planet. I don't waste valuable time on either approach. ID'ers are just tiptoeing around what they really want to say. But I like the idea of ID because it is a way to approach the atheist evolutionist that wouldn't believe a god created anything. Alot of atheist evolutionist think that ID'ers or creationist are morons that blindly believe something that has no proof. So for a creationist to approach an evolutionist would be of no merit. I've noticed alot of evolutionist pre-judge creationist and ID'ers. I know this because I'm an ex-evolutionist and an ex-athiest. But anyway, I digress because I'm getting off the subject. I'll not continue this bantor with you. I appreciate you're input though, I've discovered something I didn't know before. Cheers
The bigger issue here is that regardless of how they get the embryos, though artificial fertilization or embryo harvesting, the point is that embryonic stem cell research has produced little if any benefical results. I read a few months ago about how they were able to use ADULT stem cells to repair a mans vision. And now this posting on /. I haven't heard the first report about a significant benefit from harvesting immature embryonic stem cells. That's my only point. As far as demand supply goes, if you offer money, people will do whatever it takes to get it. Even if it desimates basic moral principals.
It is very refreshing to see MORE evidence of Adult stem cell research making headway.
Well that wouldn't do any good because you are placing adult stem cell research and ID into the same group. Stem cell research does not hinge on Evolution or vise versa. Typically, ID'ers believe stem cell research is beneficial, ADULT stem cell research. And the evidence shows that adult stem cell research has produced fabulous results. It's the embryonic stem cell research that most ID'ers don't agree with because it destroys a human life. As a side note though, embryonic stem cell research has done nothing more than end human life. It hasn't really shown itself to be useful yet.
Oh you found that information out today? Did you do that research yourself or did you read the published paper of a left-winged evolutionist? Don't you think that a scientist with an egenda will falsify their findings to promote their own agenda. This whole ID vs Evolution debate isn't about truth, it's about an agenda. That's what it's always been about and that's what it'll always be about. And yes, a creationist would probably lie to. The problem is that a creationist is probably a christian and should be making an effort to obey the moral principals put forth by his/her faith, whereas a evolutionist is probably NOT a christian and has no moral boundries which he cannot cross. Anyway, I have become weary replying to all of you /.ers and I cannot do it anymore. I will digress any further flames and leave you in peace.
God be with you.
You are basing your entire primse on what you experience. There are 12 mathematically provable dimensions. But those are just numbers on paper. It's nothing we have the ability to experience. To some a 12th dimension is a non-reality, therefore it doesn't exist. But the existance and non-extance of anything doesn't hinge on if we experience it or not. But I digress. This discussion will go no where because, as I have said, the ID vs Evolution debate isn't a persuit of truth, it's a persuit of an agenda. If it were a persuit of truth there wouldn't be so much heat involved. This coming from a previous Evolutionist and Athiest, Me.
I'm glad you have enjoyed my postings, but I've become tired from responding. As I am not a professional debater, I must stop these replys tonight. It was nice dicussing with you.
God be with you.
So you're telling me that you're comparing computer programming to the INFINITLY more complex biological processes? We can't even cure the common cold and you think we can scientifically figure out where we came from??? And why are you skewing off into a tangent about computer programming anyway. I never said the concept of evolution is evil or wrong. It's a very good concept, but not in the context of having a species change to another one. That's the WRONG DIRECTION I'm talking about. Cheers
What are you talking about? Newtons LAW of universal gravitation is just that, a LAW. Gravitation isn't a theory. It appears that your arguments are fueled by some deep hatred of "reglious dogma". I don't wish to continue fueling your already hateful nature towards God and Christians. Cheers
Well, you can look at ID as leading no where. Maybe it does lead to nothing greater. Maybe it's an anchor to hold on to. But I could look at Evolution as leading somewhere WRONG. Didn't people use to believe the world was flat. Now there's a debate worth getting into 700 years ago. Science of 700 years ago said the earth was flat. And science of 100 years later said "no freaking way". And now, 700 years in the future (pending other plans) people may just look at evolutionist and say "no freaking way" about what they thought. You see, science is within itself a flawed and fallible HUMAN tool. And it's a flawed human tool used by flawed fallible humans. Cheers
Cool. So you really CAN'T stereotype people. And this whole time I was thinking the conservative colleges were just puking out a bunch of conservative, Bush loving, Mindless minons when in fact. You just can't tell at all. Cheers
Well, I can see what you mean. I just love the way the public school has become such a better place since Prayer and God were removed. Violence, shootings, fear, hate. It's all quite nice isn't it. And yes, you can pinpoint the decline in schools at the point at which God and Prayer were removed from them. Flame on.
As I stated, and as is stated in the very document you linked me to: "The age-old battle between the beliefs of creation science and evolution brought itself to UT last Saturday, as representatives of both sides debated one of the most polarizing questions in our culture." Evolution is as much a BELIEF as creationism is. It's a description of a process? How can you say it's a description of a process? They don't even know what process they are talking about. It's like trying to describe the process of an apple becoming an orange. It doesn't happen, how can you describe something that doesn't happen. It a description of a BELIEF in a process that is vaguely understood in the first place. Again I say, if evolution were a real process, what need would there be of a debate anyway. Flame on.
Yes, and there was also a HUGE community of people that believed in the cult leader Jim Jones in the late 70's called "Peoples Temple" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Temple that caused the death of over 900 people. Just because a bunch of people are following something doesn't make it correct. Again, my point is that all this stuff is based on a BELIEF. Science if fallible and don't you think that a left winged "scientist" would alter their findings in favor of evolution just as much as a creationist scientist might alter their findings in favor of creationism. The problem is that a christian scientist is SUPPOSE to be abiding by the moral laws set forth by his/her own belief. A evolutionary scientist has no contrants to control what he/she lies or speaks truthfully about. Again I say, this is all rooted in the question "what do you believe". Flame on!
Exactly! Flame On!
Tis true. Even the Bible says "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'" If you have said there is not God within yourself, then proof is not what you are looking for. You are not interested in truth, only your agenda at that point. The real search for truth is not in you. And so the flame burns on.
Ok, yet this "scientific fact" as you call it is still under heavy fire. If it were fact, why is there still a debate. If it were fact, it would be like someone debating against the Law of Gravity.
It's a belief man, admit it. Just as ID is a belief. And again I say, the whole ID vs Evolution debate isn't about the origin of man. It's about the existance of God.
Flame on.
Why is it that all /.ers will fill up a thousand comments on something concerning ID or Evolution (which most have a vague concept of anyway). But they have nothing to say when a new discovery is made in robotics, or the new PERL 6, or hydrogen powered vehicles. People don't care about it unless there is flame behind it. People love conflict. If you didn't have conflict over one thing it would be another.
People that make the assumption that ID or Evolution are mindless, moronic concepts are in grave error. Chritian ID advocates BELIEVE that evolution is a dumb and mindless concept. It is not so. Alot of thought went into it. Evolutionist BELIEVE that ID is a dumb and mindless concept. Again, it isn't dumb and mindless. Alot of thought went into it. Both of these extreams have very intellegent (more so than us /.ers) people that believe in them. And both concepts are a BELIEF. If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF.
ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God. And that battle rages on, just as it always has in the past, and just as it will continue to in the future.
For those that think that ID is a dumb idea, why not do a little research instead of being so left winged.
http://www.drdino.com/
But again, this whole battle is about a belief so there will never be a resolution.
Flame On!
Yeah baby, FreeBSD rocks.
I know how to control the spread of AIDS. Stop having loose sex and sharing hypodermic needles. Then those that need blood transfusions will have less likely a chance of getting it.