Well, at least its a minor vendor like NVidia. Shouldn't be too many people. 76% market share?!? Then yeah, I guess they should have this nailed 3 days before release.
Science is questionable when the science actually proves a young earth instead of an old one.
Science is questionable when political votes are taken to decide things like the death of the dinosaurs or the Oort Cloud, instead of additional evidence.
Science is questionable when people's repeatable experiments are excluded from the conversation because of who they are rather than the repeatability and quality of the experiments themselves.
Nice try. Thanks for playing. But instead of straw men that they don't actually believe in, here is their own statement of their top 10 beliefs about creation:
In that case, you should be happy that creationists are questioning everything. In fact, it sounds like you would favor any repeatable scientific experiments they can perform should be taught in school.
Actually, this is a more correct statement than most people make on this subject. Both creationists and evolutionists have made wild guesses in the past that have turned out to be absolutely false. The lack of hard scientific data makes this field less scientific than most people realize.
But not because they don't contain Carbon-14. Everything contains Carbon-14 and most fossils date to around 25,000-30,000 years ago if you Carbon-14 date them.
120 million years based on the strata layer it was found in and it's assumed age by evolutionists: "The sediment that became those rocks accumulated in calm waters on the floor of a lake or a lagoon sometime between 113 million and 126 million years ago, he notes." This fossil, like most others, was never actually tested for age at all.
Test it with a hard test like carbon-14 and it will come out less than 50,000 years old. There are over 85 ways to test age but evolutionists consistently only use 3, the most common being strata layer which is assumed to begin with.
Because it shows that there IS carbon in everything. Meaning that everything tests less than 50,000 years old.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
So, evolutionists invented the idea of "background carbon" so that they could sidestep the fact that everything has carbon and is demonstrably young by the plain evidence.
Says someone who has never tried a true faith in God... Believe me when I tell you, not believing is MUCH easier than believing, because believing costs everything you have...
That's strange. Because the number one thing I notice about Windows 7 after using my Windows 10 laptop a lot is the slow response after bootup in Windows 7. And this makes sense since they aren't starting services anymore and they load 800 MB less stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it does. I can pick a random 24-character password for every website just by leaving the defaults on LastPass.
Exactly this. A programmer that fights "human nature" is doomed, no matter how good the software is.
Then I get on my phone and type in those 36 characters by hand.
Well, at least its a minor vendor like NVidia. Shouldn't be too many people. 76% market share?!? Then yeah, I guess they should have this nailed 3 days before release.
I only use the NVidia drivers and they work perfectly on Windows 7.
Just like Balaam's donkey had a voice box? Or can a spirit possess an animal and cause it to speak?
Science is questionable when the science actually proves a young earth instead of an old one.
Science is questionable when political votes are taken to decide things like the death of the dinosaurs or the Oort Cloud, instead of additional evidence.
Science is questionable when people's repeatable experiments are excluded from the conversation because of who they are rather than the repeatability and quality of the experiments themselves.
Nice try. Thanks for playing. But instead of straw men that they don't actually believe in, here is their own statement of their top 10 beliefs about creation:
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/
In that case, you should be happy that creationists are questioning everything. In fact, it sounds like you would favor any repeatable scientific experiments they can perform should be taught in school.
Actually, this is a more correct statement than most people make on this subject. Both creationists and evolutionists have made wild guesses in the past that have turned out to be absolutely false. The lack of hard scientific data makes this field less scientific than most people realize.
Yep. This is EXACTLY how they date fossils 90+% of the time. And you believe it as if they did a test or something actually scientific.
But not because they don't contain Carbon-14. Everything contains Carbon-14 and most fossils date to around 25,000-30,000 years ago if you Carbon-14 date them.
Actually, that's incorrect.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
All fossils date less than 50,000 years. This is not a problem for creationists, but it makes evolutionists uncomfortable so they don't do it.
The Garden of Eden is in Iraq, not Brazil...
He doesn't have the correct head cavity for breathing fire.
Actually, the creationist position would be that the dragon most likely died during the flood about 4,400 years ago.
120 million years based on the strata layer it was found in and it's assumed age by evolutionists: "The sediment that became those rocks accumulated in calm waters on the floor of a lake or a lagoon sometime between 113 million and 126 million years ago, he notes." This fossil, like most others, was never actually tested for age at all.
Test it with a hard test like carbon-14 and it will come out less than 50,000 years old. There are over 85 ways to test age but evolutionists consistently only use 3, the most common being strata layer which is assumed to begin with.
Because it shows that there IS carbon in everything. Meaning that everything tests less than 50,000 years old.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
So, evolutionists invented the idea of "background carbon" so that they could sidestep the fact that everything has carbon and is demonstrably young by the plain evidence.
Says someone who has never tried a true faith in God... Believe me when I tell you, not believing is MUCH easier than believing, because believing costs everything you have...
It's a dragon. Next...
Umami is a myth. It's just a combination of the other 4. It's about as real as Korean Fan Death.
Except that I would say the ACTUAL minimums (from reading forums and people testing) are more like 1.5 GHz processor and 2 GB RAM.
Of course, understating the minimum requirements happened with EVERY version of Windows, so this is nothing new.
Regardless of what they say, I would say that 2GB is the absolute minimum for Windows 10.
Even pre-production Windows 10 absolutely blows away the speed and battery life of production Windows 7.
That's strange. Because the number one thing I notice about Windows 7 after using my Windows 10 laptop a lot is the slow response after bootup in Windows 7. And this makes sense since they aren't starting services anymore and they load 800 MB less stuff.