Yes, but you have to start somewhere. In the meantime, you're supporting artists rather than stealing from them, thus giving the RIAA more license (pardon the pun)...
1) Take donations to put up ads (ad-word or banner, whatever) to encourage up-and-coming musicians to ONLY sign up with independent DRM-free music labels (like www.magnatune.com).
2) Start a pledge form (hosted at OSDL or similar) which open source contributors or fans can sign. The pledge is basically, "I pledge to never support, condone or ignore DRM in any software development endeavor or in my music purchases". Link to the pledge form in the aforementioned ads.
3) Send the signed pledge list to the agents who represent the mainstream artists to encourage them to get their artists to switch when their contracts are up.
4) BUY music (whether from iTunes or MagnaTune). Piracy is shameful, dishonest and counterproductive. "Musician" isn't a philosophical pursuit, it's an occupation, and it deserves to be compensated. Anyone capable of writing good music has enough brains to want to avoid poverty (it sucks, remember?).
We can create a sustainable, DRM-free indie music business, but it will crumble without a conscientious effort to avoid piracy at all costs. If we can do that, the mainstream music business will follow (especially when their bottom line starts to be affected)...
All right, no really, this is the LAST reply, and then I have to get on with the rest of my sorry life...:)
Regarding massive growth spurts: There would HAVE to be fossils for intermediate transitions. Let's take the fallacy of human evolution. Based on what we know of human growth population, and assuming that humans have been around for millions of years as postulated by evolutionists, the Earth would have to be littered with skeletons! There would literally be hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of ancient human fossils laying around, even accounting for plague, wars, ice ages, etc. This isn't up for debate - it's merely statistical. For a mouse to increase in size to an elephant, statistically there would have to be at least one intermediate fossil proving this! It's only common sense. The evolutionary record on this is remarkably shabby in this regard.
As to transitional animals being fully functional, this belies commonsense too. You can't take two completely different respiratory systems (for example), make an intermediate form of them, and expect them to "just work". They won't. We're expected to believe that ALL transitional forms of eyes, brains, respiratory systems, skeletal systems for ALL existing species were fully functional? This is completely unreasonable from a scientific point of view, and no reasonable man would believe this. If you do, you're wilfully suspending disbelief in order to support a world-view that fits your current lifestyle (which is the whole basis for evolution, in my opinion).
Regarding the trillions of positive mutations that would have to occur, you say, "There is selection for good mutations", I have to ask you, "Who is doing the selecting?" Since this is all supposedly random, the odds of any given complex system randomly assembling even over 250 million years is ridiculously absurd, even for simpler systems. Again, it's the law of statistics: let's say there are 10 microorganisms in a given complex system that have to work right for it to be "functional". The odds of them evolving together is 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10. That's 1 in 10 billion (if my math is right). That's just one very simple system, and the human body has billions of them! That makes the odds WORST than astronomical!
There are many other arguments that counter evolution, such as the evidence of a massive worldwide flood, the fact that the sun would have increased in size to envelope the Earth over that time-span, etc. Many books have been written on this.
I don't have time to keep going. Bible prophecy is playing out before our eyes, and history, archeology and past fulfilled prophecy all tell us we can trust the Bible to know who we are and where we're going. Time is running out. I feel that with the recent very bad behavior from Iran recently, Armageddon is very near. Accept Christ while you still have time! Seacrest out...
You can't say that intermediate forms can't have a function and then say...
They're not saying the intermediate forms can't have a function. They're saying they aren't functional! There's a difference.
Evolution of size changes is extremely simple. Remember we are talking of changes over millions of years...
The sea animal is 10 times larger, for heaven's sake! And if the transition took place over millions of years, why don't we have any fossils for the intervening time??
...there are plenty of animals around right now that are transitional - think of hippos, seals, penguins, crocodiles.
These aren't transitional animals! They're fully functional, fully articulate! You expect me to believe that (going back to the land/sea analogy) the transition was intantaneous thereby eliminating any difficulties that would normally arise during the transition? Talk about taking something on faith!
And I don't know how you can gloss over the immensely sophisticated functionality of whales and dolphins mentioned in the article. Engineers try DELIBERATELY for years to reproduce this functionality and fail (even when we succeed, we often don't know why we succeeded because the chemical interactions are unfathomable...) There just isn't enough time for these trillions upon trillions of random (mostly failing) mutations to occur!
Evolutionists routinely paper over (or use fancy paintings) to fill in the massive holes in their theory. From the article: "The difference is illustrated well in the article 'A Whale of a Tale'. This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram)."
I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe this crap! I'm going to leave it here. I hope you will consider reading the two aforementioned books, plus books that are pro-Christian (which, as I have said, do a much better job of eliminating doubt than evolution), such as those by Grant Jeffrey, Josh McDowell, Norm Geisler, etc. I wish you the best - Merry Christmas! (oops, I offended again...:)
Thanks for the link. Here's a refutation from the Answers In Genesis group:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter5.asp
One thing the article points out is that the diagram showing the transition from a land mammal to the first sea-based one fails to show an important point: the two species are RADICALLY different in size. I'll let you read the article, but I will say that in regard to the aforementioned transition, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from what appears to be a fully functional land animal to a fully functional sea animal! I don't buy it! Why don't these transitional animals die off due to poor ambulatory ability, poor digestion ability, etc., which would be the result if the one were really changing into the other; evolutionists can't answer that one!
Here's a much more technical refutation, but I'll admit: I only skimmed it since it goes over my head!
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp
I believe God created ALL of these transitional forms in order to "fill in" different parts of our ecology, that is, the food chain. We don't know what role each of these animals played, but they all had a purpose.
I'd also like to point out that radio-carbon dating is far from perfect. It was used (back in the '50s I believe) to date some lava flows (or some such) to 800 million years old, but it was later discovered from records that they were in fact only decades old. (I think the process relies too heavily on assumptions of the underlying material, where it was found, etc.)
Thanks for that bit about the "troll" ranking. Many Christians point out that evolution can't withstand a serious debate, so its proponents often stymie debate by using ad-hominem attacks to redirect the direction of the debate. The "troll" ranking is another example, and it's sad because it's censorship, plain and simple. Isn't that something that only Conservatives/Republicans practice?
As to the point-by-point refutation, you can skip all that if you want and just direct me to a website that shows the intermediate fossil record for the transition between a primitive animal and the modern animal it was supposed to have evolved to, say, ape and man. I'll take another look (with an open mind)...:)
You say these statements are in error, but don't say how. How? If Mr. Buchanan (and others) are wrong about intermediate fossils not existing (say, something between a velociraptor and a bird), please show me! I'd like to see at least two intermediate fossils, please.
As I have stated in the past here, my belief in Christianity is not on any single piece of evidence, but an entire mountain of evidence which, taken in whole, is a LOT more convincing than anything I have read about evolution (and I *have* read a lot of it, but try not to because of the nauseating effect it has...:)
Be careful to NOT read any book that offers proof for Christianity - it will turn your world upside down and that would be bad for the digestion. By the way, has anyone "invested" in evolution asked themselves if they could possibly be wrong? Try it - it's healthy!
Evolution is wishful thinking on steroids. Pat Buchanan (despite what you think of him) has summarized the current state of evolution quite well here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=47973
Again, I would urge you SlashDot readers to stop being so close-minded (nay, dogmatic?) about evolution and creationism/ID. If you haven't read "Darwin's Black Box" or "Darwin On Trial", you're just as close-minded as the "Bible-thumpers" you deride.
WARNING: Another author's book is mentioned in the article.
Well, I've got better things to do than be insulted. (I've been down this road a million times before. These arguments always go meandering into nothingness because my opponent always refuses to RRRRREEEEAAAADDD the stuff I ask him/her to read (hmmm, should I use "RTFM" in regard to Biblical treatises? - nah, it would be rude); instead, he/she just counters a proven argument by changing the subject or broad-brushing glaring deficiencies in their argument. Someone who doesn't WANT to believe will fight like a cornered wolf to dispute it...)
My final word: read books by Grant Jeffrey, Josh McDowell (sp?), and Norm Geisler. Josh McDowell wrote a two volume treatise entitled, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", a COLLEGE-LEVEL course! Also, go to www.equip.org and order up some materials. If you RRRREEEAAAADDD this material and you still don't want to believe - fine! I congratulate you on making an INFORMED decision!
Seacrest, out...
"It also should NOT, in and of itself, convince you of the existence of supernatural powers or beings or life after death,"
Actually, if the claims made by the apostles can be proven, it would (at least, in the case of Christ), prove that he was who he said he was. As has been documented in many books, all but one of the apostles died defending his pro-Christ stance; who do you know who would die defending a lie? Further, the Roman historian Josephus (who was known as a secular, stand-up guy) documented what witnesses told him at the time, that Christ was not only performing miracles, but that he appeared to over 500 after his death. (Before you postulate the "Jesus didn't really die" hypothesis, remember that a Roman guard would be put to death if he failed to carry out an order; I can assure you that the guard who put a spear in Christ made doubly sure he was dead...:) Whole books have been written on this topic, clearly putting it to rest...)
"the historical accuracy of the Bible is hardly extraordinary."
As I said, science has not been able to disprove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) any historical claim made by the Bible! In fact, if you choose to discard Christianity on the basis of a lack of documentary evidence, you'd have to discard the life of Julius Caesar and many others, because Christ's life (and David's life, etc.) is MUCH better documented than his!
"the prophecy of the Bible, like any good prophecy, is written in such a way that it is impossible to disprove."
Some of them *are* written this way, but DOZENS of prophecies in the Bible are very explicit, like where Jesus would be born. Consider the odds: if each prophecy in the Bible had a 1 in 100 chance of occuring (and the odds are actually much worst), the odds of a mere 5 prophecies coming true randomly are 1 in 10 billion. As I stated earlier, there are HUNDREDS of prophecies in the Bible. You're chance of winning the lottery is actually much higher than the chance of all of the fulfilled prophecies coming true randomly.
I don't have time to continue this today; I'll pick it up later...
Let's say the Bible says PersonX built an altar in CityY during the reign of RulerZ. Until modern times, no proof exists, so critics say, "See! The Bible is a fraud!". Then, in 1960 (again, hypothetically), a cave is found with scrolls that document the building of this altar by PersonX. The scrolls are radio carbon dated to the reign of RulerZ and otherwise are thought to be genuine.
Not to be condescending, but this is, by any reasonable scientific standard, proof. (And non-dogmatic proof at that.) No amount of name-calling, mocking or derision can overcome that. Grant Jeffrey's books (and others) document THOUSANDS of such proofs, and there are NO books that have been able to effectively eviscerate the authenticity of the Bible. Year after year, science has been proving, not disproving, the Bible; a phenomenon that is likely unique when applied to all historical "myths". Men have been put to death in courts of law for MUCH LESS evidence that that which exists to prove the authenticity of the Bible.
I suggest you get your head out of your leering ass and open your eyes. When properly interpreted by a true scholar of Biblical times and languages, the Bible can be shown to be divinely inspired (or at least, oddly astonishing!)
One final note: Christianity is the only "religion" in history to include prophecy (in fact, approximately 1/3 of it is prophecy). Were Christianity false, prophecy would truly be a dangerous thing to include because it wouldn't take much time to prove false, thus allowing your critics to flush you down the toilet. But the Bible's prophecy has been shown to be inerrant (keeping in mind that not all of it has come to pass yet, re: the Rapture).
Actually, you can. Grant Jeffrey has been putting out NON-DOGMATIC books for years PACKED with proof - archeological, documentary, fulfilled prophecy. (No, I'm not a stooge for Jeffrey; I'm just an avid reader of his, but haven't been able to read any of his recent books due to a lack of time...) The information in his books is STAGGERING for anyone who has an open mind.
If you read Armageddon, Apocalypse, or Messiah (some books of his I have read), or Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", you'll begin to wonder if there's something to this Christianity stuff after all...:)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you have to start somewhere. In the meantime, you're supporting artists rather than stealing from them, thus giving the RIAA more license (pardon the pun)...
1) Take donations to put up ads (ad-word or banner, whatever) to encourage up-and-coming musicians to ONLY sign up with independent DRM-free music labels (like www.magnatune.com).
2) Start a pledge form (hosted at OSDL or similar) which open source contributors or fans can sign. The pledge is basically, "I pledge to never support, condone or ignore DRM in any software development endeavor or in my music purchases". Link to the pledge form in the aforementioned ads.
3) Send the signed pledge list to the agents who represent the mainstream artists to encourage them to get their artists to switch when their contracts are up.
4) BUY music (whether from iTunes or MagnaTune). Piracy is shameful, dishonest and counterproductive. "Musician" isn't a philosophical pursuit, it's an occupation, and it deserves to be compensated. Anyone capable of writing good music has enough brains to want to avoid poverty (it sucks, remember?).
We can create a sustainable, DRM-free indie music business, but it will crumble without a conscientious effort to avoid piracy at all costs. If we can do that, the mainstream music business will follow (especially when their bottom line starts to be affected)...
All right, no really, this is the LAST reply, and then I have to get on with the rest of my sorry life...:)
p ter5.asp
Regarding massive growth spurts: There would HAVE to be fossils for intermediate transitions. Let's take the fallacy of human evolution. Based on what we know of human growth population, and assuming that humans have been around for millions of years as postulated by evolutionists, the Earth would have to be littered with skeletons! There would literally be hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of ancient human fossils laying around, even accounting for plague, wars, ice ages, etc. This isn't up for debate - it's merely statistical. For a mouse to increase in size to an elephant, statistically there would have to be at least one intermediate fossil proving this! It's only common sense. The evolutionary record on this is remarkably shabby in this regard.
As to transitional animals being fully functional, this belies commonsense too. You can't take two completely different respiratory systems (for example), make an intermediate form of them, and expect them to "just work". They won't. We're expected to believe that ALL transitional forms of eyes, brains, respiratory systems, skeletal systems for ALL existing species were fully functional? This is completely unreasonable from a scientific point of view, and no reasonable man would believe this. If you do, you're wilfully suspending disbelief in order to support a world-view that fits your current lifestyle (which is the whole basis for evolution, in my opinion).
Regarding the trillions of positive mutations that would have to occur, you say, "There is selection for good mutations", I have to ask you, "Who is doing the selecting?" Since this is all supposedly random, the odds of any given complex system randomly assembling even over 250 million years is ridiculously absurd, even for simpler systems. Again, it's the law of statistics: let's say there are 10 microorganisms in a given complex system that have to work right for it to be "functional". The odds of them evolving together is 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10. That's 1 in 10 billion (if my math is right). That's just one very simple system, and the human body has billions of them! That makes the odds WORST than astronomical!
The "Whale of a Tale" article is linked to in the original article, which I repost here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/cha
There are many other arguments that counter evolution, such as the evidence of a massive worldwide flood, the fact that the sun would have increased in size to envelope the Earth over that time-span, etc. Many books have been written on this.
I don't have time to keep going. Bible prophecy is playing out before our eyes, and history, archeology and past fulfilled prophecy all tell us we can trust the Bible to know who we are and where we're going. Time is running out. I feel that with the recent very bad behavior from Iran recently, Armageddon is very near. Accept Christ while you still have time! Seacrest out...
You can't say that intermediate forms can't have a function and then say...
They're not saying the intermediate forms can't have a function. They're saying they aren't functional! There's a difference.
Evolution of size changes is extremely simple. Remember we are talking of changes over millions of years...
The sea animal is 10 times larger, for heaven's sake! And if the transition took place over millions of years, why don't we have any fossils for the intervening time??
These aren't transitional animals! They're fully functional, fully articulate! You expect me to believe that (going back to the land/sea analogy) the transition was intantaneous thereby eliminating any difficulties that would normally arise during the transition? Talk about taking something on faith!
And I don't know how you can gloss over the immensely sophisticated functionality of whales and dolphins mentioned in the article. Engineers try DELIBERATELY for years to reproduce this functionality and fail (even when we succeed, we often don't know why we succeeded because the chemical interactions are unfathomable...) There just isn't enough time for these trillions upon trillions of random (mostly failing) mutations to occur!
Evolutionists routinely paper over (or use fancy paintings) to fill in the massive holes in their theory. From the article: "The difference is illustrated well in the article 'A Whale of a Tale'. This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram)."
I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe this crap! I'm going to leave it here. I hope you will consider reading the two aforementioned books, plus books that are pro-Christian (which, as I have said, do a much better job of eliminating doubt than evolution), such as those by Grant Jeffrey, Josh McDowell, Norm Geisler, etc. I wish you the best - Merry Christmas! (oops, I offended again...:)
Thanks for the link. Here's a refutation from the Answers In Genesis group: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter5.asp
One thing the article points out is that the diagram showing the transition from a land mammal to the first sea-based one fails to show an important point: the two species are RADICALLY different in size. I'll let you read the article, but I will say that in regard to the aforementioned transition, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from what appears to be a fully functional land animal to a fully functional sea animal! I don't buy it! Why don't these transitional animals die off due to poor ambulatory ability, poor digestion ability, etc., which would be the result if the one were really changing into the other; evolutionists can't answer that one!
Here's a much more technical refutation, but I'll admit: I only skimmed it since it goes over my head!
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp
I believe God created ALL of these transitional forms in order to "fill in" different parts of our ecology, that is, the food chain. We don't know what role each of these animals played, but they all had a purpose.
I'd also like to point out that radio-carbon dating is far from perfect. It was used (back in the '50s I believe) to date some lava flows (or some such) to 800 million years old, but it was later discovered from records that they were in fact only decades old. (I think the process relies too heavily on assumptions of the underlying material, where it was found, etc.)
Thanks for that bit about the "troll" ranking. Many Christians point out that evolution can't withstand a serious debate, so its proponents often stymie debate by using ad-hominem attacks to redirect the direction of the debate. The "troll" ranking is another example, and it's sad because it's censorship, plain and simple. Isn't that something that only Conservatives/Republicans practice? As to the point-by-point refutation, you can skip all that if you want and just direct me to a website that shows the intermediate fossil record for the transition between a primitive animal and the modern animal it was supposed to have evolved to, say, ape and man. I'll take another look (with an open mind)... :)
You say these statements are in error, but don't say how. How? If Mr. Buchanan (and others) are wrong about intermediate fossils not existing (say, something between a velociraptor and a bird), please show me! I'd like to see at least two intermediate fossils, please. As I have stated in the past here, my belief in Christianity is not on any single piece of evidence, but an entire mountain of evidence which, taken in whole, is a LOT more convincing than anything I have read about evolution (and I *have* read a lot of it, but try not to because of the nauseating effect it has... :)
Be careful to NOT read any book that offers proof for Christianity - it will turn your world upside down and that would be bad for the digestion. By the way, has anyone "invested" in evolution asked themselves if they could possibly be wrong? Try it - it's healthy!
Evolution is wishful thinking on steroids. Pat Buchanan (despite what you think of him) has summarized the current state of evolution quite well here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=47973
Again, I would urge you SlashDot readers to stop being so close-minded (nay, dogmatic?) about evolution and creationism/ID. If you haven't read "Darwin's Black Box" or "Darwin On Trial", you're just as close-minded as the "Bible-thumpers" you deride.
WARNING: Another author's book is mentioned in the article.
Well, I've got better things to do than be insulted. (I've been down this road a million times before. These arguments always go meandering into nothingness because my opponent always refuses to RRRRREEEEAAAADDD the stuff I ask him/her to read (hmmm, should I use "RTFM" in regard to Biblical treatises? - nah, it would be rude); instead, he/she just counters a proven argument by changing the subject or broad-brushing glaring deficiencies in their argument. Someone who doesn't WANT to believe will fight like a cornered wolf to dispute it...) My final word: read books by Grant Jeffrey, Josh McDowell (sp?), and Norm Geisler. Josh McDowell wrote a two volume treatise entitled, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", a COLLEGE-LEVEL course! Also, go to www.equip.org and order up some materials. If you RRRREEEAAAADDD this material and you still don't want to believe - fine! I congratulate you on making an INFORMED decision! Seacrest, out...
"It also should NOT, in and of itself, convince you of the existence of supernatural powers or beings or life after death,"
Actually, if the claims made by the apostles can be proven, it would (at least, in the case of Christ), prove that he was who he said he was. As has been documented in many books, all but one of the apostles died defending his pro-Christ stance; who do you know who would die defending a lie? Further, the Roman historian Josephus (who was known as a secular, stand-up guy) documented what witnesses told him at the time, that Christ was not only performing miracles, but that he appeared to over 500 after his death. (Before you postulate the "Jesus didn't really die" hypothesis, remember that a Roman guard would be put to death if he failed to carry out an order; I can assure you that the guard who put a spear in Christ made doubly sure he was dead...:) Whole books have been written on this topic, clearly putting it to rest...)
"the historical accuracy of the Bible is hardly extraordinary."
As I said, science has not been able to disprove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) any historical claim made by the Bible! In fact, if you choose to discard Christianity on the basis of a lack of documentary evidence, you'd have to discard the life of Julius Caesar and many others, because Christ's life (and David's life, etc.) is MUCH better documented than his!
"the prophecy of the Bible, like any good prophecy, is written in such a way that it is impossible to disprove."
Some of them *are* written this way, but DOZENS of prophecies in the Bible are very explicit, like where Jesus would be born. Consider the odds: if each prophecy in the Bible had a 1 in 100 chance of occuring (and the odds are actually much worst), the odds of a mere 5 prophecies coming true randomly are 1 in 10 billion. As I stated earlier, there are HUNDREDS of prophecies in the Bible. You're chance of winning the lottery is actually much higher than the chance of all of the fulfilled prophecies coming true randomly.
I don't have time to continue this today; I'll pick it up later...
Let's say the Bible says PersonX built an altar in CityY during the reign of RulerZ. Until modern times, no proof exists, so critics say, "See! The Bible is a fraud!". Then, in 1960 (again, hypothetically), a cave is found with scrolls that document the building of this altar by PersonX. The scrolls are radio carbon dated to the reign of RulerZ and otherwise are thought to be genuine.
Not to be condescending, but this is, by any reasonable scientific standard, proof. (And non-dogmatic proof at that.) No amount of name-calling, mocking or derision can overcome that. Grant Jeffrey's books (and others) document THOUSANDS of such proofs, and there are NO books that have been able to effectively eviscerate the authenticity of the Bible. Year after year, science has been proving, not disproving, the Bible; a phenomenon that is likely unique when applied to all historical "myths". Men have been put to death in courts of law for MUCH LESS evidence that that which exists to prove the authenticity of the Bible.
I suggest you get your head out of your leering ass and open your eyes. When properly interpreted by a true scholar of Biblical times and languages, the Bible can be shown to be divinely inspired (or at least, oddly astonishing!)
One final note: Christianity is the only "religion" in history to include prophecy (in fact, approximately 1/3 of it is prophecy). Were Christianity false, prophecy would truly be a dangerous thing to include because it wouldn't take much time to prove false, thus allowing your critics to flush you down the toilet. But the Bible's prophecy has been shown to be inerrant (keeping in mind that not all of it has come to pass yet, re: the Rapture).
Actually, you can. Grant Jeffrey has been putting out NON-DOGMATIC books for years PACKED with proof - archeological, documentary, fulfilled prophecy. (No, I'm not a stooge for Jeffrey; I'm just an avid reader of his, but haven't been able to read any of his recent books due to a lack of time...) The information in his books is STAGGERING for anyone who has an open mind.
:)
If you read Armageddon, Apocalypse, or Messiah (some books of his I have read), or Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", you'll begin to wonder if there's something to this Christianity stuff after all...