I don't see anything in what you quoted that describes how God created everything...just that he did. Therefore, this passage doesn't serve to disprove evolution at all, since that is the mechanism God may have used to create the life we see today.
As for this passage 'proving' Intelligent Design, sorry, but that simply doesn't wash. Finding a reference in the Bible is not proof, since the Bible was supposedly written by God...exactly the 'Designer' whose existence the passage is supposed to prove. In the trade, we call this 'circular logic'.
Believe in Intelligent Design all you like...it is a matter of faith, after all. Just don't presume to 'prove' it, since as a matter of faith, it is outside the purview of logic.
Exactly. That's the whole problem with ID as a 'theory'...it is unprovable. Not only can it never be proven, it can also never be disproven, hence it must be disqualified as a scientific theory.
God, I love TimeCube...Gene Ray is either irretrivably psychotic, or the most brilliant satirist ever (probably a bit of both).
Here's one of the choicer excerpts:
Can you tear and burn the bible, which represents Biblistic Selfnic Bastardism - contradicted by Cubic Creation of Family and Village Tribal Perpetual Bodies. If not, you are self-indicted as DUMB and EVIL SPINELESS WORD ANIMAL, totally ignorant of Nature's Cubic Life.
I stated in my original post that I believe in God, and that I believe Jesus died so that we might be saved. I didn't say anything about the Bible. If you're going to argue my points, at least have the courtesy to refrain from distorting them first.
(BTW, your reference to John 1 doesn't contradict evolution in any way...in fact, it doesn't seem to relate to the subject at hand in any fashion. I'd ask for a clarification as to how you believe this supports your argument, but at this point, I'm unclear as to what your argument is, and I doubt any 'clarifications' you could subsequently offer would be any more cogent.)
Wrong. Discounting for the moment that we don't actually require millions of years of sitting and watching, even if your outrageous statement was true, the fact would remain that evolution could eventully be proven or disproven...it would just be inordinately difficult.
Contrast that with the quasi-religious Intelligent Design, which postulates a Designer, the existence of which is fundamentally unprovable. Not just difficult, but intrinsically impossible to either prove or disprove.
By the very standards of scientific thought, ID cannot be considered a scientific discipline.
Oh, dear God...the Intelligent Design debate rears its ugly head once again. I predict a thousand comments on this story...easy.
OK...let's get the ball rolling, shall we?
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.
(Note: during these debates, the issue of my own faith is always raised, so let me address that now. I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ died so that we may be saved.)
HOWEVER , I do not believe that such matters of faith should be taught in schools. I know that my faith is inherently unprovable...that's pretty much the definition of 'faith'. Matters of unproven, unprovable faith belong in your chosen place of worship. Matters of proven, or at least provable fact belong in the secular classroom.
Exactly my point. Telus has clearly violated existing regultions...the authorities should be concentrating of enforcing those, rather than pointlessly re-legislating.
Without HTTP 1.1 and the Host header, you could just bind multiple IPs to a single machine.
Yes, but I believe your limit with hard IPs is 256 (IIRC). With host headers, your only real limit is the robustness of your hardware and the size of your pipe (although with Apache, at least, if you want more than 2048 hosts, you do have to redefine the HARD_SERVER_LIMIT in src/include/httpd.h, and then recompile...again, IIRC).
So let me get this straight...you're comparing the behavior of an ISP, who is required by law to not impede access to the websites it hosts, to the behavior of a private website, who is under no such requirement.
Your argument is rather like saying since the city cannot ban people from driving down a street for no good reason, then it necessarily follows that these same people must be allowed unfettered access to the private residences on that street.
No, it doesn't. Collateral damage happens when the sysadmin is question is lazy and/or ignorant. It would have been easy to block access to only www.voices-for-change.com, and no others, but instead they chose to block the entire IP address. Either they wanted to pass the blockage off as an accidental outage (and failed) or the sysadmin just couldn't be bothered to do the extra work, and just blocked an entire IP in the router. Either way, it's despicable.
Section 36 of the [Canadian Telecommunications] Act states that, without the approval of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, a "Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning of telecommunications carried by it for the public," and Section 27(2) of the Act prohibits a Canadian character, in providing a telecommunications service, from "unjustly discriminat[ing] or giv[ing] an undue or unreasonble preference toward any person, includ[ing] itself, or subject[ing] any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.
Clearly, Telus violated the Canadian Telecommunications Act by their heavy-handed disconnection of www.voices-for-change.com. This alone should be grounds for revocation of their license, but the incidental blocking of an additional 766 unrelated websites is even more reprehensible than their intended censorship.
The article however leads one to believe that this will allow them to properly distinguish relations between species, which may or may not be true.
Well, this pretty much dovetails (forgive the pun), into my earlier post. It stands to reason that examining birds in the near-UV to which they are sensitive will help to more properly distinguish relations between species, since this is one of the mechanisms the birds themselves use.
From TFA:
I describe an avian example of an interspecific phenomenon in which related sympatric species that appear similar to humans (sibling species) differ dramatically in the UV. Both UV video images and physical reflectance spectra indicate that the dorsal plumage of the tanager Anisognathus notabilis has a strong UV-limited reflectance band that readily distinguishes this species from its sibling congener Anisognathus flavinuchus. The main human-visible distinction between A. notabilis (olive back) and coexisting A. flavinuchus (black back) also occurs among different geographic populations of A. flavinuchus. Notably, however, olive- and black-backed taxa interbreed (differentiated populations of A. flavinuchus) unless the additional UV distinction is present (A. notabilis vs. A. flavinuchus). Thus, UV-based reflectance can be an essential component of plumage divergence that relates to reproductive isolation, a key attribute of biological species.
Birds don't have the luxury of DNA tests, but they've been using this method successfully for millennia. An added bonus is that it's much cheaper than DNA testing.
The important thing to remember is that birds see in the near ultraviolet, so when we look at birds in that manner, we are seeing them as they see themselves and each other.
I doubt if TripMasterMonkey even has used any of the products in question..
Actually, I'm posting from my Toshiba laptop running SuSE 9.3 (I spent last Saturday replacing my Fedora 3 install). Thanks for playing, though.
Look at his posting history.. He likes karma whoring with meaningless but catchy posts, especially first posts.
Apparently, the majority of slashdotters do not share your jaundiced view of my contributions. But at least you think my posts are 'catchy'...I suppose that's something.
I'm hoping that ISO images of the install CD for this 'OpenSUSE' will be available for download. Installing via FTP works, but it's an unnecessary pain in the ass.
Is Novell following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc., with its Fedora Core Linux distribution, or continuing its own open source policy as it has in the past as with YAST?
While I'd much prefer the latter, I'm betting that the former possibility is much more probable. However, either option would be just fine, provided that the new OpenSuSE is binary-compatible with SuSE Professional.
From TFA:
Lowry did not confirm it, but sources say that Novell will also make the multi-platform software build system freely available to the community, so developers can build versions of packages for any hardware they support. Novell will still sell boxed versions of SUSE with tech support, but everyone will have access to updates and developmental code.
From this excerpt, it seems that Novell doesn't intend to make the two binary-incompatible, as Red Hat did with Fedora and RHEL. I certainly hope they don't change their minds on this.
SuSE is currently available for free via FTP download. It takes a while to get a system installed and up nd running, but IMHO, SuSE 9.3 is definitely worth it.
Is Novell following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc., with its Fedora Core Linux distribution, or continuing its own open source policy as it has in the past as with YAST?
While I'd much prefer the latter, I'm betting that the former possibility is much more probable. However, either option would be just fine, provided that the new OpenSuSE is binary-compatible with SuSE Professional.
From TFA:
Lowry did not confirm it, but sources say that Novell will also make the multi-platform software build system freely available to the community, so developers can build versions of packages for any hardware they support. Novell will still sell boxed versions of SUSE with tech support, but everyone will have access to updates and developmental code.
From this excerpt, it seems that Novell doesn't intend to make the two binary-incompatible, as Red Hat did with Fedora and RHEL. I certainly hope they don't change their minds on this.
"Radiation exposure is certainly one of the major problems facing future interplanetary space travellers," says Murdoch Baxter, founding editor of the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. "Unless we can develop instantaneous time and space transfer technologies like Dr Who's TARDIS."
Thanks a lot, Murdoch...very helpful. Are you sure you haven't soaked up too many RADs yourself?
Seriously, though, does anyone know just how much material is needed to block these rays? Specifically, if a space habitat were constructed (along the lines of an O'Neill cylinder, for instance), how many meters of rock would we require on the outer surface to make the place long-term habitable?
Transcript of conversation between Discovery and ground control:
Discovery: OK, Houston...I'm in position..I see the dangling gap-filler now. Houston: OK, Discovery...just grasp the gap-filler and pull. Discovery: OK, Houston...I'm pulling now...it's coming out...it's coming out rather easily. Houston: Just keep pulling gently and firmly...you're doing well. Discovery: It's still coming, Houston...there's a lot more here than I thought... Houston: Say again, Discovery? Discovery: I said there's quite a lot of gap-filler here...about twenty yards so far... Houston:STOP PULLING, Discovery...it seems you're unravelling the whole belly of the ship! Discovery: I'm what, Houston? Say again, ple...OH SHIT! THE GODDAMNED TILES ARE ALL FALLING OFF! Houston: Don't panic, Discovery. Discovery: DON'T PANIC, YOU ASSHOLE? WHAT SHOULD I DO? WE NEED THOSE TILES! Houston: Stand by, Discovery...we're working on a solution. Discovery: SCREW YOU, HOUSTON! We're going to the ISS now...send up another shuttle to carry our asses back home! Houston: Um...yeah...about the other shuttles, Discovery... Discovery: What NOW? Houston: Yeah...the shuttle fleet has been permanently grounded...too many people freaked about the foam thing... Discovery:Nobody up here CARES, Houston...you get us a flight outta here NOW, or we start smashing satellites! Houston: OK, OK, Discovery...no need to get violent...I'll make some calls. Discovery: Yeah...you do that...and just so you know we're serious... Houston: What do you mean? Discovery: When we hear some good news from you, you'll get CNN back. Not before.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a matter of faith and thus completely outside science.
So far, you're in total agreement with me. If it is a matter of faith, it belongs in our institutions of faith, not our institutions of learning.
And it doesn't contradict evolution in any way.
OK...so why is it being put forth as a 'competing theory'?
I'd comment on the rest of your post, but it's all just a mismash of inflammatory non-sequiturs anyway.
For the sake of debate let's say that nothing new has been created since God did his thing.
From Ecclesiastes 1:9
I don't see anything in what you quoted that describes how God created everything...just that he did. Therefore, this passage doesn't serve to disprove evolution at all, since that is the mechanism God may have used to create the life we see today.
As for this passage 'proving' Intelligent Design, sorry, but that simply doesn't wash. Finding a reference in the Bible is not proof, since the Bible was supposedly written by God...exactly the 'Designer' whose existence the passage is supposed to prove. In the trade, we call this 'circular logic'.
Believe in Intelligent Design all you like...it is a matter of faith, after all. Just don't presume to 'prove' it, since as a matter of faith, it is outside the purview of logic.
I remember when I got the Barrel Launcher mod for Doom II...I laughed myself sick. ^_^
A theory can only be Disproven.
Exactly. That's the whole problem with ID as a 'theory'...it is unprovable. Not only can it never be proven, it can also never be disproven, hence it must be disqualified as a scientific theory.
God, I love TimeCube...Gene Ray is either irretrivably psychotic, or the most brilliant satirist ever (probably a bit of both).
Here's one of the choicer excerpts:Truly priceles.
So you believe the bible do you?
I stated in my original post that I believe in God, and that I believe Jesus died so that we might be saved. I didn't say anything about the Bible. If you're going to argue my points, at least have the courtesy to refrain from distorting them first.
(BTW, your reference to John 1 doesn't contradict evolution in any way...in fact, it doesn't seem to relate to the subject at hand in any fashion. I'd ask for a clarification as to how you believe this supports your argument, but at this point, I'm unclear as to what your argument is, and I doubt any 'clarifications' you could subsequently offer would be any more cogent.)
Wrong. Discounting for the moment that we don't actually require millions of years of sitting and watching, even if your outrageous statement was true, the fact would remain that evolution could eventully be proven or disproven...it would just be inordinately difficult.
Contrast that with the quasi-religious Intelligent Design, which postulates a Designer, the existence of which is fundamentally unprovable. Not just difficult, but intrinsically impossible to either prove or disprove.
By the very standards of scientific thought, ID cannot be considered a scientific discipline.
Oh, dear God...the Intelligent Design debate rears its ugly head once again. I predict a thousand comments on this story...easy.
OK...let's get the ball rolling, shall we?
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.
(Note: during these debates, the issue of my own faith is always raised, so let me address that now. I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ died so that we may be saved.)
HOWEVER , I do not believe that such matters of faith should be taught in schools. I know that my faith is inherently unprovable...that's pretty much the definition of 'faith'. Matters of unproven, unprovable faith belong in your chosen place of worship. Matters of proven, or at least provable fact belong in the secular classroom.
Take this tool, for instance, that shows the IP address of any website.
All websites have at least one IP address. Not all websites have a unique IP address, however.
Exactly my point. Telus has clearly violated existing regultions...the authorities should be concentrating of enforcing those, rather than pointlessly re-legislating.
Without HTTP 1.1 and the Host header, you could just bind multiple IPs to a single machine.
Yes, but I believe your limit with hard IPs is 256 (IIRC). With host headers, your only real limit is the robustness of your hardware and the size of your pipe (although with Apache, at least, if you want more than 2048 hosts, you do have to redefine the HARD_SERVER_LIMIT in src/include/httpd.h, and then recompile...again, IIRC).
So let me get this straight...you're comparing the behavior of an ISP, who is required by law to not impede access to the websites it hosts, to the behavior of a private website, who is under no such requirement.
Your argument is rather like saying since the city cannot ban people from driving down a street for no good reason, then it necessarily follows that these same people must be allowed unfettered access to the private residences on that street.
Next time, think before you post.
Collateral damage happens, like it or not.
No, it doesn't. Collateral damage happens when the sysadmin is question is lazy and/or ignorant. It would have been easy to block access to only www.voices-for-change.com, and no others, but instead they chose to block the entire IP address. Either they wanted to pass the blockage off as an accidental outage (and failed) or the sysadmin just couldn't be bothered to do the extra work, and just blocked an entire IP in the router. Either way, it's despicable.
From The OpenNet Initiative PDF:Clearly, Telus violated the Canadian Telecommunications Act by their heavy-handed disconnection of www.voices-for-change.com. This alone should be grounds for revocation of their license, but the incidental blocking of an additional 766 unrelated websites is even more reprehensible than their intended censorship.
The article however leads one to believe that this will allow them to properly distinguish relations between species, which may or may not be true.
Well, this pretty much dovetails (forgive the pun), into my earlier post. It stands to reason that examining birds in the near-UV to which they are sensitive will help to more properly distinguish relations between species, since this is one of the mechanisms the birds themselves use.
From TFA:Birds don't have the luxury of DNA tests, but they've been using this method successfully for millennia. An added bonus is that it's much cheaper than DNA testing.
Hope this clears things up for you.
The important thing to remember is that birds see in the near ultraviolet, so when we look at birds in that manner, we are seeing them as they see themselves and each other.
I doubt if TripMasterMonkey even has used any of the products in question..
Actually, I'm posting from my Toshiba laptop running SuSE 9.3 (I spent last Saturday replacing my Fedora 3 install). Thanks for playing, though.
Look at his posting history.. He likes karma whoring with meaningless but catchy posts, especially first posts.
Apparently, the majority of slashdotters do not share your jaundiced view of my contributions. But at least you think my posts are 'catchy'...I suppose that's something.
He wants the attention.
And you never fail to give it to me, do you? ^_^
I'm hoping that ISO images of the install CD for this 'OpenSUSE' will be available for download. Installing via FTP works, but it's an unnecessary pain in the ass.
Is Novell following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc., with its Fedora Core Linux distribution, or continuing its own open source policy as it has in the past as with YAST?
While I'd much prefer the latter, I'm betting that the former possibility is much more probable. However, either option would be just fine, provided that the new OpenSuSE is binary-compatible with SuSE Professional.
From TFA:From this excerpt, it seems that Novell doesn't intend to make the two binary-incompatible, as Red Hat did with Fedora and RHEL. I certainly hope they don't change their minds on this.
SuSE is currently available for free via FTP download. It takes a while to get a system installed and up nd running, but IMHO, SuSE 9.3 is definitely worth it.
Is Novell following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc., with its Fedora Core Linux distribution, or continuing its own open source policy as it has in the past as with YAST?
While I'd much prefer the latter, I'm betting that the former possibility is much more probable. However, either option would be just fine, provided that the new OpenSuSE is binary-compatible with SuSE Professional.
From TFA:From this excerpt, it seems that Novell doesn't intend to make the two binary-incompatible, as Red Hat did with Fedora and RHEL. I certainly hope they don't change their minds on this.
Seriously, though, does anyone know just how much material is needed to block these rays? Specifically, if a space habitat were constructed (along the lines of an O'Neill cylinder, for instance), how many meters of rock would we require on the outer surface to make the place long-term habitable?
That's a bit like saying, "It's not the fall that kills you...it's the sudden stop."
Transcript of conversation between Discovery and ground control:
Discovery: OK, Houston...I'm in position..I see the dangling gap-filler now.
Houston: OK, Discovery...just grasp the gap-filler and pull.
Discovery: OK, Houston...I'm pulling now...it's coming out...it's coming out rather easily.
Houston: Just keep pulling gently and firmly...you're doing well.
Discovery: It's still coming, Houston...there's a lot more here than I thought...
Houston: Say again, Discovery?
Discovery: I said there's quite a lot of gap-filler here...about twenty yards so far...
Houston: STOP PULLING, Discovery...it seems you're unravelling the whole belly of the ship!
Discovery: I'm what, Houston? Say again, ple...OH SHIT! THE GODDAMNED TILES ARE ALL FALLING OFF!
Houston: Don't panic, Discovery.
Discovery: DON'T PANIC, YOU ASSHOLE? WHAT SHOULD I DO? WE NEED THOSE TILES!
Houston: Stand by, Discovery...we're working on a solution.
Discovery: SCREW YOU, HOUSTON! We're going to the ISS now...send up another shuttle to carry our asses back home!
Houston: Um...yeah...about the other shuttles, Discovery...
Discovery: What NOW?
Houston: Yeah...the shuttle fleet has been permanently grounded...too many people freaked about the foam thing...
Discovery:Nobody up here CARES, Houston...you get us a flight outta here NOW, or we start smashing satellites!
Houston: OK, OK, Discovery...no need to get violent...I'll make some calls.
Discovery: Yeah...you do that...and just so you know we're serious...
Houston: What do you mean?
Discovery: When we hear some good news from you, you'll get CNN back. Not before.