Exactly. Does anyone know how many qubits this quantum computer has and how large of a number it was that they are able to factor? I'll call it a significant advancement if they can factor 21 or 35 now.
Actually, quantum computing attacks do exist for elliptic curve crypto, which relies on the elliptic curve discrete log problem (ECDLP), as Bernstein mentioned in the Post-Quantum Crypto conference list. As that blog post noted, Shor's Algorithm essentially boils down to finding the order of a subgroup of the multiplicative group (Z/(nZ))^*, where n is the number to factor, and the rest is easy. That is precisely what you need to do in the ECDLP: find the order of the subgroup generated by a point on the curve. It's a little different in practice of course, since you need to implement elliptic curve arithmetic, but the idea is the same.
I think you may be right. Think about it. Exposed magma boils water above it, which in turn warms the water in that area, warming the ocean surface above that area, warming the air around there, and hence causing the planet to heat up slightly. This should also explain the general increase in the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic as well. I think the reason why the magma doesn't solidify is because there is a lot more magma than water. This is just a theory, but I think it makes sense. What does everyone else think?
While I do have moral problems with embryonic stem cell research and the cloning of humans for harvesting as a Christian and a human being, I oppose embryonic stem cell research as a scientist. The reason embryonic stem cells don't work is because they are very similar in structure and behavior to cancer cells. They grow uncontrollably, until at a key point in the development of an embryo, a hormone kicks in to shut off the cancerous nature of the stem cells. These chemicals are nonexistent in adults, so embryonic stem cells are of no use in adults. Adult stem cells do work, as mentioned above, so why not put more research and funding into that? I stongly believe they have promise and can do what many hope embryonic stem cells will do.
Embryonic stem cell research is like putting millions of dollars into creating a better vacuum tube for computers, when there are clearly better options out there.
And to the other Christians out there - don't argue and debate with moral arguments. Most people in this forum won't listen; it's like a Muslim commanding us to follow the Qu'ran, as someone mentioned as well. Use science, a language we can all understand and appreciate.
It appears that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats care about the decline in personal privacy. We have an opportunity on November 7th to tell them how we feel about this. Find a good third party candidate for Congress, and vote for him. Make sure to tell all your friends and family to do likewsie. There are many more options than the mainstream media would like you like you to know about.
Sure, there's plenty of evidence that fake moon landings were filmed in a studio. There's some great evidence for that that convinced me. However, there is plenty of convincing evidence that we did land on the moon like moon rocks that have been studied by researchers around the planet, mirrors placed on the surface to bounce signals back to Earth, etc.
The obvious conclusion is that NASA landed on the moon and filmed fake landings in a studio.
I gave my fiancee an engagement ring with a green tourmaline. Green is her favorite color, so she loves it. She didn't want a diamond. I'm hoping to start an anti-diamond trend.
I don't think people on the Atkin's Diet are likely to die from a global flood and the resulting change in Earth's climate. Malnutrition is more likely.
Hey Jim,
I knew someone would pull out something like that . I read that or something similar in high school. It's mostly verses taken out of context, not really contradictions at all, errors in translation (The King James Version, used in that link, isn't the most accurate translation out there. You'd have to go to the original Greek and Hebrew to get the best translation in my opinion.) and differing observations from two different perspectives. Scarlet robe versus purple robe? Big deal. It's close. Maybe one guy was color blind. Who knows? Many "contradictions" come from a misunderstanding of God's nature and character. Nobody can fully understand God, much less someone who doesn't believe in Him, since the foolishness of God is greater than man's greatest wisdom and His ways are higher than our ways.
But if the Bible is false and God does not exist, then how can Micah predict the location of Jesus' birth (Micah 5:2)? How can David describe Jesus' crucifixion in Psalm 22? How can Jesus predict His betrayer and also the length of His burial (three days and three nights, sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday)? And if Jesus was never raised from the dead, then why would His disciples be willing to face torture and death for a lie? The empty tomb testifies to His resurrection. The fishermen of the group effectively abandoned Jesus to return to fishing (John 21:2-3). Why the sudden change? The only explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. Why? We all search for love and companionship and don't like it when people reject our love. I'm sure most people have experienced getting rejected for a date, and are overjoyed when someone says yes, and more so when they get married. God created us because He wants companionship. He wants a bride in that sense. That's it. The problem in a relationship is when there is conflict between two people that separate them. Any wrongdoing between two people will keep them apart until there is forgiveness. The same is true with God. When He made us in His image, that came with His emotions and need for love and companionship. When we do wrong, we sin against Him and must be forgiven. Every wrongdoing must be punished. Previously sin was atoned for by animal sacrifice. In other cases, God's wrath was poured out on people that did not obey Him, e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah, and Israel itself during times of rebellion. Here, God's wrath was poured out on Jesus who was the atoning sacrifice for all sin and He was raised to life again to defeat death. Your sins have been atoned for and we don't need to fear death. Believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins, and you are saved from receiving the punishment that Jesus received and are instead part of the Bride of Jesus. There's much much more to this, but I need to sleep now.
-- Eric
Well, I'm sure the methods he glosses over in this summary is explained in rigorous detail in his paper that he referenced. This article you mention wasn't meant to be published in a scientific journal, so he didn't bother with "showing his work." I believe that the intent of this article was to give a summary of research and to also say that his theory and the actual data is consistent with a young universe, whereas the predictions of people favoring an old solar system were not consistent with the data. This gives young earth creation theory more credibility, and while as you say, evolutionists may not care about the magnetic field of Uranus and Neptune, it lends support to young Earth creation theory, which would therefore discredit any theory based on the universe being old, namely evolution. You can't deny his results. He does note that his theory didn't explain every detail of the magnetic fields, so there is work to be done. Creation theorists don't have all the answers, but like any scientist, they're trying to find them.
And yeah, you're right that many tag old-universe theorists as evolutionists. I'm sure I can come across that way if I'm not careful with my wording. So yeah, that isn't always the case. There are actually creationists that support an old universe, but not evolution. I believe Dr. Hugh Ross is an example.
-- Eric
I don't think that's one of the methods he's talking about. The way people would date those rocks is radiometric dating, which many would say proves that such rocks are old. So Humphreys puts that in the 10% category, and notes that specifically in one article of his I read. The way scientists approach radiometric dating is flawed and makes several assumptions about the initial composition of some materials when in fact such assumptions really can't be made. I've heard of examples where radiometric dating has shown the age of some materials (whose true age is known) to be many times their actual age. For these reasons no true scientist can trust radiometric dating, yet that is what many evolutionists use to test the age of many materials.
The only reason evolutionists don't take creation science seriously is because they don't want to. They don't want to believe in God and use the media, our education system, and outright persecution the way a child will stick his fingers in his ears and say "Lalalalalalala! I'm not listening!" to ignore true evidence and then force their beliefs on the population.
Hey Bun, It seems that you are willing to consider evidence that could challenge the current theory of evolution. One thing to consider deals with genes. This is a big oversimplification, but Darwin observed that some population groups develop certain traits based on natural selection. Mutations aside, what this leads to is a decrease in the gene pool and no new species, rather than an increase and new species.
Anyway, some other stuff to read can be found at
www.icr.org
www.reasons.org
www.answersingenesis.org
e.g. an interesting interview:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/ph ysics.asp
Happy reading!
-- Eric
Macroevolution theory is like a wiffle ball. People that pitch it get it to curve any way they want, but it's hollow, full of holes, and is useless for the real game.:)
-- Eric
Actually the reason by many papers supporting ID are not published in some reputable scientific journals is not because they are philosophical, but rather because they are scientific and prove things that the editors (who don't accept ID) don't want to accept. It's really sad that many in the scientific community do not accept such scientific work because it conflicts with their own bias, and put the label "unscientific" on good scientific research to pressure people into believing that God does not exist and that science has proof. It's just a cover for their insecurity. They are afraid that God exists. The same holds for anyone who subscribes to macroevolutionism. Sure, creationists have a bias too, but the goal of science is knowledge of the truth. Either this Universe was created or it wasn't. One of those facts is true. Scientists supporting creation don't have all the answers and they know that. Many have differing opinions on what exactly happened during creation and when that all happened. We disagree on some points, but agree on the most important point that this universe was created.
It's also funny to note how some "non-ID" scientists have unknowingly (or knowingly) supported creation theory and published their work in reputable journals. Readers have had to accept this work and do so with reluctance. I guarantee that if the exact same research is done by a creation scientist and includes a note saying how this research supports a young earth, then that paper will not be accepted in any journal other than ones dealing specifically with creation science. For an interesting interview with Dr. Russell Humphreys, who has some interesting theories and shows you what I mean, go to
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/ph ysics.asp
He notes that of the several hundred ways of dating the earth, about 90% of them support a young earth. Evolutionists focus on the 10% and refuse to acknowledge the rest of the data. Creationists note the 90% and analyze the 10% and try to see how it fits with the rest of the data, and are showing more and more that that 10% actually supports a young earth. Now I ask you, who are the real scientists? Real scientists look at all the data. Macroevolution is more of a faith or philosophy than a science.
-- Eric
It's good to have an open mind, as long as you close it on the truth. You don't want your brains spilling out.
Yup. I know it's a circular argument, so you won't like it, but find a flaw in the Bible and that argument is toast. Personally, I've read it through a couple times and haven't found one. I also know of people that studied the Bible with the intent of disproving it and in the process went from being an atheist to a Christian.
-- Eric
I just looked up Dr. Humphreys on Google. He's got some cool stuff out there. I'm going to get his book _Starlight and Time_. It's really interesting that his model of the Earth's magnetic field, supporting a young Earth, was extended to predict the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before Voyager measured it. Not only did Voyager confirm Humphreys' prediction, but showed that the evolutionists' prediction was several orders of magnitude off. Good stuff. Thanks for the tip!
I also recently read _Refuting Evolution_ by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. After reading that I was convinced that evolutionists really do have their backs to the wall.
As a Christian who happens to have an interest in science, being a grad student in math, I could respond to the hundreds of accusations being thrown at God or provide scientific evidence to support God as the Creator, but I think that would be a waste of time. I will note that the scientific method was developed by Christians and the scientific revolution in Europe was begun by people (e.g. Newton) wanting to worship God by understanding His Creation. So science and Christianity are intimately linked in that sense.
While this debate is interesting, I would be surprised if anyone on either side of the creation/evolution debate is swayed to believe otherwise. This is why putting in my own arguments in favor of creationism would be a waste of my time.
In particular, you who do not belive in God and are hostile to Him use evolution and other anti-God arguments as a cover for your own insecurity. It shows. Inside you have no peace, but rather fear. You are afraid that God does in fact exist, and are afraid of what might happen to you if He does. You try to eliminate that fear by providing many arguments that God cannot exist, or that if He does, then He is evil or simply doesn't care. But that doesn't work and the fear remains so you try shouting louder. Many of you look to evolution as a way to take God out of the equation and calm your fear, but it hasn't worked, and it's not going to work. In the Bible it says that fear has to do with punishment, but perfect love drives out fear. Your fear is there because you are have done wrong and haven't been forgiven by God. God sent Jesus as the Passover Lamb to be sacrificed as a guilt offering as punishment for all of mankind's sins so that you don't have to deal with fear and guilt any more. God is that perfect love that will drive out your fear if you want Him to. You just have to ask, and if so, you will be a new creation, and then you will see why we believe what we believe and understand the creationist's perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Does anyone know how many qubits this quantum computer has and how large of a number it was that they are able to factor? I'll call it a significant advancement if they can factor 21 or 35 now.
Actually, quantum computing attacks do exist for elliptic curve crypto, which relies on the elliptic curve discrete log problem (ECDLP), as Bernstein mentioned in the Post-Quantum Crypto conference list. As that blog post noted, Shor's Algorithm essentially boils down to finding the order of a subgroup of the multiplicative group (Z/(nZ))^*, where n is the number to factor, and the rest is easy. That is precisely what you need to do in the ECDLP: find the order of the subgroup generated by a point on the curve. It's a little different in practice of course, since you need to implement elliptic curve arithmetic, but the idea is the same.
I think you may be right. Think about it. Exposed magma boils water above it, which in turn warms the water in that area, warming the ocean surface above that area, warming the air around there, and hence causing the planet to heat up slightly. This should also explain the general increase in the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic as well. I think the reason why the magma doesn't solidify is because there is a lot more magma than water. This is just a theory, but I think it makes sense. What does everyone else think?
While I do have moral problems with embryonic stem cell research and the cloning of humans for harvesting as a Christian and a human being, I oppose embryonic stem cell research as a scientist. The reason embryonic stem cells don't work is because they are very similar in structure and behavior to cancer cells. They grow uncontrollably, until at a key point in the development of an embryo, a hormone kicks in to shut off the cancerous nature of the stem cells. These chemicals are nonexistent in adults, so embryonic stem cells are of no use in adults. Adult stem cells do work, as mentioned above, so why not put more research and funding into that? I stongly believe they have promise and can do what many hope embryonic stem cells will do. Embryonic stem cell research is like putting millions of dollars into creating a better vacuum tube for computers, when there are clearly better options out there. And to the other Christians out there - don't argue and debate with moral arguments. Most people in this forum won't listen; it's like a Muslim commanding us to follow the Qu'ran, as someone mentioned as well. Use science, a language we can all understand and appreciate.
It appears that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats care about the decline in personal privacy. We have an opportunity on November 7th to tell them how we feel about this. Find a good third party candidate for Congress, and vote for him. Make sure to tell all your friends and family to do likewsie. There are many more options than the mainstream media would like you like you to know about.
Sure, there's plenty of evidence that fake moon landings were filmed in a studio. There's some great evidence for that that convinced me. However, there is plenty of convincing evidence that we did land on the moon like moon rocks that have been studied by researchers around the planet, mirrors placed on the surface to bounce signals back to Earth, etc. The obvious conclusion is that NASA landed on the moon and filmed fake landings in a studio.
I gave my fiancee an engagement ring with a green tourmaline. Green is her favorite color, so she loves it. She didn't want a diamond. I'm hoping to start an anti-diamond trend.
I don't think people on the Atkin's Diet are likely to die from a global flood and the resulting change in Earth's climate. Malnutrition is more likely.
Hey Jim, I knew someone would pull out something like that . I read that or something similar in high school. It's mostly verses taken out of context, not really contradictions at all, errors in translation (The King James Version, used in that link, isn't the most accurate translation out there. You'd have to go to the original Greek and Hebrew to get the best translation in my opinion.) and differing observations from two different perspectives. Scarlet robe versus purple robe? Big deal. It's close. Maybe one guy was color blind. Who knows? Many "contradictions" come from a misunderstanding of God's nature and character. Nobody can fully understand God, much less someone who doesn't believe in Him, since the foolishness of God is greater than man's greatest wisdom and His ways are higher than our ways. But if the Bible is false and God does not exist, then how can Micah predict the location of Jesus' birth (Micah 5:2)? How can David describe Jesus' crucifixion in Psalm 22? How can Jesus predict His betrayer and also the length of His burial (three days and three nights, sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday)? And if Jesus was never raised from the dead, then why would His disciples be willing to face torture and death for a lie? The empty tomb testifies to His resurrection. The fishermen of the group effectively abandoned Jesus to return to fishing (John 21:2-3). Why the sudden change? The only explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. Why? We all search for love and companionship and don't like it when people reject our love. I'm sure most people have experienced getting rejected for a date, and are overjoyed when someone says yes, and more so when they get married. God created us because He wants companionship. He wants a bride in that sense. That's it. The problem in a relationship is when there is conflict between two people that separate them. Any wrongdoing between two people will keep them apart until there is forgiveness. The same is true with God. When He made us in His image, that came with His emotions and need for love and companionship. When we do wrong, we sin against Him and must be forgiven. Every wrongdoing must be punished. Previously sin was atoned for by animal sacrifice. In other cases, God's wrath was poured out on people that did not obey Him, e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah, and Israel itself during times of rebellion. Here, God's wrath was poured out on Jesus who was the atoning sacrifice for all sin and He was raised to life again to defeat death. Your sins have been atoned for and we don't need to fear death. Believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins, and you are saved from receiving the punishment that Jesus received and are instead part of the Bride of Jesus. There's much much more to this, but I need to sleep now. -- Eric
Well, I'm sure the methods he glosses over in this summary is explained in rigorous detail in his paper that he referenced. This article you mention wasn't meant to be published in a scientific journal, so he didn't bother with "showing his work." I believe that the intent of this article was to give a summary of research and to also say that his theory and the actual data is consistent with a young universe, whereas the predictions of people favoring an old solar system were not consistent with the data. This gives young earth creation theory more credibility, and while as you say, evolutionists may not care about the magnetic field of Uranus and Neptune, it lends support to young Earth creation theory, which would therefore discredit any theory based on the universe being old, namely evolution. You can't deny his results. He does note that his theory didn't explain every detail of the magnetic fields, so there is work to be done. Creation theorists don't have all the answers, but like any scientist, they're trying to find them. And yeah, you're right that many tag old-universe theorists as evolutionists. I'm sure I can come across that way if I'm not careful with my wording. So yeah, that isn't always the case. There are actually creationists that support an old universe, but not evolution. I believe Dr. Hugh Ross is an example. -- Eric
I don't think that's one of the methods he's talking about. The way people would date those rocks is radiometric dating, which many would say proves that such rocks are old. So Humphreys puts that in the 10% category, and notes that specifically in one article of his I read. The way scientists approach radiometric dating is flawed and makes several assumptions about the initial composition of some materials when in fact such assumptions really can't be made. I've heard of examples where radiometric dating has shown the age of some materials (whose true age is known) to be many times their actual age. For these reasons no true scientist can trust radiometric dating, yet that is what many evolutionists use to test the age of many materials. The only reason evolutionists don't take creation science seriously is because they don't want to. They don't want to believe in God and use the media, our education system, and outright persecution the way a child will stick his fingers in his ears and say "Lalalalalalala! I'm not listening!" to ignore true evidence and then force their beliefs on the population.
Hey Bun, It seems that you are willing to consider evidence that could challenge the current theory of evolution. One thing to consider deals with genes. This is a big oversimplification, but Darwin observed that some population groups develop certain traits based on natural selection. Mutations aside, what this leads to is a decrease in the gene pool and no new species, rather than an increase and new species. Anyway, some other stuff to read can be found at www.icr.org www.reasons.org www.answersingenesis.org e.g. an interesting interview: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/ph ysics.asp
Happy reading!
-- Eric
Macroevolution theory is like a wiffle ball. People that pitch it get it to curve any way they want, but it's hollow, full of holes, and is useless for the real game. :)
-- Eric
Actually the reason by many papers supporting ID are not published in some reputable scientific journals is not because they are philosophical, but rather because they are scientific and prove things that the editors (who don't accept ID) don't want to accept. It's really sad that many in the scientific community do not accept such scientific work because it conflicts with their own bias, and put the label "unscientific" on good scientific research to pressure people into believing that God does not exist and that science has proof. It's just a cover for their insecurity. They are afraid that God exists. The same holds for anyone who subscribes to macroevolutionism. Sure, creationists have a bias too, but the goal of science is knowledge of the truth. Either this Universe was created or it wasn't. One of those facts is true. Scientists supporting creation don't have all the answers and they know that. Many have differing opinions on what exactly happened during creation and when that all happened. We disagree on some points, but agree on the most important point that this universe was created. It's also funny to note how some "non-ID" scientists have unknowingly (or knowingly) supported creation theory and published their work in reputable journals. Readers have had to accept this work and do so with reluctance. I guarantee that if the exact same research is done by a creation scientist and includes a note saying how this research supports a young earth, then that paper will not be accepted in any journal other than ones dealing specifically with creation science. For an interesting interview with Dr. Russell Humphreys, who has some interesting theories and shows you what I mean, go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/ph ysics.asp
He notes that of the several hundred ways of dating the earth, about 90% of them support a young earth. Evolutionists focus on the 10% and refuse to acknowledge the rest of the data. Creationists note the 90% and analyze the 10% and try to see how it fits with the rest of the data, and are showing more and more that that 10% actually supports a young earth. Now I ask you, who are the real scientists? Real scientists look at all the data. Macroevolution is more of a faith or philosophy than a science.
-- Eric
It's good to have an open mind, as long as you close it on the truth. You don't want your brains spilling out.
Yup. I know it's a circular argument, so you won't like it, but find a flaw in the Bible and that argument is toast. Personally, I've read it through a couple times and haven't found one. I also know of people that studied the Bible with the intent of disproving it and in the process went from being an atheist to a Christian. -- Eric
I just looked up Dr. Humphreys on Google. He's got some cool stuff out there. I'm going to get his book _Starlight and Time_. It's really interesting that his model of the Earth's magnetic field, supporting a young Earth, was extended to predict the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before Voyager measured it. Not only did Voyager confirm Humphreys' prediction, but showed that the evolutionists' prediction was several orders of magnitude off. Good stuff. Thanks for the tip!
I also recently read _Refuting Evolution_ by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. After reading that I was convinced that evolutionists really do have their backs to the wall.
-- Eric
As a Christian who happens to have an interest in science, being a grad student in math, I could respond to the hundreds of accusations being thrown at God or provide scientific evidence to support God as the Creator, but I think that would be a waste of time. I will note that the scientific method was developed by Christians and the scientific revolution in Europe was begun by people (e.g. Newton) wanting to worship God by understanding His Creation. So science and Christianity are intimately linked in that sense.
While this debate is interesting, I would be surprised if anyone on either side of the creation/evolution debate is swayed to believe otherwise. This is why putting in my own arguments in favor of creationism would be a waste of my time.
In particular, you who do not belive in God and are hostile to Him use evolution and other anti-God arguments as a cover for your own insecurity. It shows. Inside you have no peace, but rather fear. You are afraid that God does in fact exist, and are afraid of what might happen to you if He does. You try to eliminate that fear by providing many arguments that God cannot exist, or that if He does, then He is evil or simply doesn't care. But that doesn't work and the fear remains so you try shouting louder. Many of you look to evolution as a way to take God out of the equation and calm your fear, but it hasn't worked, and it's not going to work. In the Bible it says that fear has to do with punishment, but perfect love drives out fear. Your fear is there because you are have done wrong and haven't been forgiven by God. God sent Jesus as the Passover Lamb to be sacrificed as a guilt offering as punishment for all of mankind's sins so that you don't have to deal with fear and guilt any more. God is that perfect love that will drive out your fear if you want Him to. You just have to ask, and if so, you will be a new creation, and then you will see why we believe what we believe and understand the creationist's perspective.
-- Eric