Re: Off topic?
And it was very spectacular when someone sawing through a new busbar close to live ones slipped.
58 posts • joined 13 Jul 2007
It's sad that no mention was made of where the international telegraph office moved to when the CTO was bombed. Electra House, by Temple underground station was a hive of activity and saw a constant change in technology, until it eventually had two packet switching exchanges, one for the EEC and another for the rest of the world. When I joined we still used cable code and morse, when I left we also used ASCII and X25. International picture transmission was on the fifth floor and incoming pictures would be D&P and sent by messenger to the newspapers in Fleet Street, not far away. We started with a re-transmission system for telegrams, telegraph lines were point to point, and ended with a computerized store and forward system. Telegraphs always were about technological change and advancement.
It was a quite nice HP minitower. It had Win 8 on it. My wife wondered why I was screaming at it.
Upgraded (?) to 8.1 and the screaming lessened. But I went back to my _old_ XP machine.
Question - why aren't you using your new computer you paid so much for?
In the end I ripped out Windows, installed Linux Mint, installed VirtualBox, bought a copy of XP & of 7 and installed those as virtual machines for a) Flight Simulator & b) any M$ programme I might need. (Itunes runs better on 7 but that is not to say that it runs well)
The result - no screaming at the computer. Joy!!!!!
"For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God," 2 Peter 3:5
So, since the Earth was formed from water, so was everything else.
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed the correlation between the lack of evidence required to declare mobile phones a health hazard and the lack of evidence for Evolution?
What a pathetic slogan. If it's down to 'probably' then you might be wrong and then you won't enjoy yourself in the end.
"Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, And let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; Walk in the ways of your heart, And in the sight of your eyes; But know that for all these God will bring you into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9
In any case why shouldn't a religious person enjoy themselves? As the hymnwriter wrote "Religion never was designed to make our pleasures less". Of course it has to be a rational religion - not the Atheist one. Strange how so many people here are totally irrational on the subject
You don’t address my point, that in a ‘god of the gaps’ way scientists assumed that because they didn’t know what parts of the genome for they, based on their evolutionary preconceptions, assumed they were ‘junk’ left over from evolutionary history. It would have been more scientific to assign them to “we don’t know yet what they are for”. In the same way, the concept of vestigial organs was invented, resulting in around 100 organs being so described. All of these organ have now identified purpose.
>The "God of the gaps" argument is silly and self-defeating.<
So why use the “god of the gaps” argument? I certainly don’t.
Wouldn’t it be nice if scientists actual used the scientific method as you describe it. I fact they don’t. Scientists come to their work, like anyone else, with preconceptions, they expect the world to work in so and so fashion. Scientists who believe in Evolution approach their work with that belief. If the experiment that they carry out does not give the result they expect they can do a number of things, reject the result, redefine the result in evolutionary terms, adjust the experiment so it gives the result expected. Any result that is published that cast doubt on Evolution is treated this way. Remember the discovery of haemoglobin in dinosaur bones? What a fuss! That is why, when Michael Reiss was misquoted, members of the Royal Society were up in arms against him.
Your story about how the science relating to chimp and human genetic similarity is a nice fiction. Actually what probably happened is that the scientists sat down with the information and trawled through it until they came up with some evidence. Incidentally, I mistyped, humans have telomeres about half the length of chimpanzees and other apes. Strange that.
>Stick the end of the above sentence into Google and you get, amongst other things, an "Answers in Genesis" article and the paper they cite. Amusingly, neither of these agree with what the above sentence says.<
It must be nice to be so totally cushioned in your beliefs - personally I need to know answers. As I've already posted, I mistyped - you can read my correction above.
>Nope. If it were, why is there so much junk DNA?<
Junk DNA was so called because it was not known what it was for. Pretty poor science, if you ask me, to call something junk if you don't know what it is for. Incidentally, purpose is being found for the 'junk'
>If we aren't evolved from apes why do we have one less DNA strand and the one we have different is the same as two from chimps fused together AND has telomeres (which occur only at the ends of DNA stretches) in the middle.<
Have you noticed, there is some similarity between chimps and men? Could be something to do with it. There are a number of differences that are conveniently not included in the calculations of human/chimp similarity, among them that human telomeres are about the length of those in chimps. Like you, the scientists who claim this are dedicated followers of Evolution and find the evidence to back up their belief.
>Is that the long-deceased Watchmaker Argument you're trying to resurrect there?<
No, actually it isn't dead, despite (because of?) the efforts of Dawkins and his ilk.
>Still, their argument inevitably leads to the point that, if God (the implied or stated creator of humans) is more complex still, then God, too, must have had a creator<
No, God does not require a maker - because He has always been and always will be - He is outside of time. God is the source of all things and without beginning and therefore does not require a cause.
>And if God can be an uncaused effect then so, in principle, could the universe itself <
Could, were it not for the evidence that it is running down - evidence that it once had a begining and will have an end.
>I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "loss of information",<
Genetic material is effectively information on the variable features of the form of life encoded in a highly efficient manner. Mutation is the result of damage to the material and is the loss of genetic information.
>Note: "It has EVOLVED ..."<
No, actually it hasn't evolved, it is "a resistant variation of the common bacterium Staphylococcus aureus". Just as people vary, so bacterium vary. Some people have genetic illnesses, some people have red hair, it is not evolution it is variation.
>MRSA is a classic example of evolution happening right under our noses. Antibiotics became widely used from the 1940s on. MRSA evolved its resistance in the 1990s (and is not the first species of bacterium to have evolved resistance to at least some antibiotics).<
Now I'm not sure about MRSA but I do know that bacteria resistant to modern antibiotics were found in the frozen corpses of members of an ill fated polar exploration. Selection occurs without Evolution occurring.
>Speciation arises from evolution<
No, speciation is quite different from Evolution and occurs when variation arises from the selection of information already existing in the genome. It is noteworthy that domestic dogs are considered one species despite a range of variation that, had it occurred naturally, would have resulted in a number of 'species'. Evolution, on the other hand requires the generation of new genetic features that did not previously exist - limbs for example from a form without limbs. Evolution has never been observed.
Another way of saying no one has ever seen Evolution happen - without actually admitting it.
Basically saying "you can't demonstrate that there is a limit to variability. However it is clear that scientists do find a limit to variability - note the concerns to save genetic information that are behind such as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. You may also consider what happens when pedigree dogs are over bred. I recall recently a suggestion that the restriction on marriage between relatives be widened, due to the increasing genetic load in the human genome. If you can't see a limit to genetic variability then the reason is that you don't want to.
Speciation is not Evolution since it is but the application of existing genetic variability in the genome.
Incidentally, talkorigins is somewhat below the level of Wikipedia in the reliability stakes.
Mark has clearly run out of arguments since all he can use is vulgarities.
>MRSA is a bacterium<
OOPs, thanks for the correction - however it still hasn't evolved and is still a bacterium. Interestingly most of the 'resistance' to drugs et al found in life is actually caused by loss of information. Much like the loss of information in sickle cell anaemia provides resistance to malaria.
As to Evolution being science, it's actually more a philosophy - hence all the steam coming out of collars. <G>
No, Evolution isn't a fact, it's never been observed and no one can demonstrate it. It is an idea, beloved of those who dislike the though of a God, which doesn't actually work when you test it.
You are right about one thing, The Register is stirring it - the headline makes that obvious, using the discredited concept of dinosaurs being birds.
>I told you already that I had to read the Bible at school - religious education was compulsory, and I more than adequately demonstrated my knowledge by passing the exams by quite some margin. Feel free to re-read this with expletives to drill the point home into your contrary little skull.<
Wow, and that made you an expert!! However you appear to have forgotten anything you did know.
>Where has Badger said he has never read the bible? It's part of junior school in the UK.<
However you do not learn much about the Bible at Junior or Secondary school. Indeed to really understand the Bible takes a lifetime. It would, however, be interesting to know when was the last time either of you Bible students actually opened a Bible.
When you toss a coin and make a decision on the result you are deciding on the basis of resultant data. You are taking data and applying your intelligence to it. Now it is true that a description of information theory will say that flipping a coin will have less entropy than a tossed dice but that does not mean that either implies that a flipped coin imparts information. The coin will contain information on both sides - and in some cases the edge - however that information was placed there by an intelligence, not by the act of tossing the coin.
That bird flu can be passed to humans and cause harm and cowpox does not cause harm when passed to humans is irrelevant. Bird flu may have mutated but it is still a virus, is still bird flu in fact, and has not evolved.
If you don't read the Bible you won't know what is in it - let alone understand it. Perhaps you ought to give up regurgitating what others have told you and find out for yourself. Then we could actually discuss.
I'll give you a clue - as Dawkins said in the Channel 4 programme - No one has ever observed Evolution and no one has ever demonstrated it. Thus it isn't really science, just a hypothesis favoured by many because it means that they don't have to worry about God.
I'd agree that knowing how the mind works would be fascinating but you would be somewhat limited by your belief in a purely material existence. So, what's the point in discussing it further?
As to the Pope - do you actually know what a Christian is according to the Bible?
The genome does contain information, I'm afraid. And the transmission of that information from one cell to another uses a mechanism to pass information. Mutations occur when there is an error in that mechanism. In effect it is similar to any system that transfers information. Now you might prefer to think of the contents of cells as Darwin did - as a jelly like substance - but science has moved on since then.
Who do you think took those plants and bred them to select for the mutations. It was _intelligent_ human beings.
As I said a long while ago, you folk do not understand Evolution or Christianity.
What does abiogenesis have to do with Evolution? Well, since ToE postulates an entirely 'natural' cause for the variety of life you must also be able to postulate a natural source for that life. Thus any concept of Evolution must also include the origin of life.
Actually, if they discovered a fossil that threw doubt on ToE it would be ignored. Can't have anything casting doubt on the creation myth of the atheist can we. Do you remember the fuss over the haemoglobin found in a dinosaur bone?
>I'm not really that interested in reading what a bunch of people tens of hundreds of years ago (or somewhat less, given the translations that most people are reading) have to say on various matters related to the structure of the universe given the scientific knowledge actually available at the time but unknown to or ignored by such people, and given what we've learned, thanks to scientific advances, in the last few hundred years.<
More fool you. You'd rather take as truth a book by a guy who failed at medicine and theology and who hesitated to publish his 'big idea' until someone threatened to pip him at the post! (it's even said that he pinched a good deal of the otherman's ideas as well)
I'm afraid you won't understand the Bible unless you read it for yourself. Do us all a favour by keeping your ignorance on the subject to yourself.
>There's a huge body of scientific work constantly documenting evolution.<
Then why can you not demonstrate it?
>Hardly, unless the Pope's masses are filmed against a green screen.<
Why would you think that the Pope was a Christian at all, let alone a mainstream one?
>This is just the usual quote-mining going on, combined with the classic creationist's misuse of the laws of thermodynamics.<
So who mentioned thermodynamics?
>>Errors destroy information and mutations are errors.<
Yet another misrepresentation of the science, but then skimming off and misrepresenting the results of other people's hard work is what creationism is all about.<
Then prove it. All you ever do is deny, you have no ideas of your own. If you have any involvement in IT you would know that errors destroy information and a lot of effort goes into combating errors and if you knew anything about biology you'd know that mutations are errors.
>Turtles all the way down again, or maybe up into heaven.<
If you want to believe in turtles that's up to you.
>On the basis of what you consider to be science or on the basis of actual science?<
On the basis of _actual_ science. Prove me wrong, demonstrate Evolution.
Yes, it was written by a man, but did you notice the sixth word? What that means is that though men wrote they were inspired in what they wrote by God. That is what Christians mean when they say that the Bible is written by God.
Since you appear to accept that Christians can also be scientists why can you not accept that scientists who do not accept Evolution to be sound scientists could be right?
>Your refutation that "heaven" and "sky" weren't meant interchangeably in various scriptures.<
Then perhaps you ought to go back and read what I wrote.
You might want to consider that ToE postulates a series of random events resulting in your mind. this hardly implies a world where events happen in a logical fashion and where minds are capable of logical thought. On the contrary, a world based on the chaotic nature of random events would not lead to a logical science. On the other hand, a logical God creating a logical universe leads, logically, to a logical science. You are dependent for science on a logical God.
>Naturally. But those scientists don't let preconceived notions of the universe, written up from tribal knowledge, dominate their critical inquiries.<
All scientists have preconceived notions and all scientists interpret the world based on those preconceived notions. That's why Dawkins is a believer in Evolution, because he is an atheist. The concept of a disinterested scientist discovering wonderful things about the world is far from the truth. All people, scientists included, have a worldview and look at the world through glasses coloured by that worldview.
>Here's the thing about science, Martin: it's not about which badge you're wearing or whether you support the same football team, prophet, spiritual leader, deity or whatever; it's not about "he's a Christian, too, so I believe in his work"; it's all about the results and whether those results stand up to cold, hard, objective scrutiny by people who say, "Yes, that helps us understand why that thing happens, and it helps us reason about when and how it might happen again."<
So demonstrate Evolution. That should help you understand how it happens.
>Sadly for mainstream Christians (because their reputation gets soiled by a bunch of pig-ignorant fundamentalists) and for everyone else, the people doing all the shouting about supposed "killer flaws" in evolution - which itself indicates that they don't understand how science is done - are people whose "review" of evolution starts with quote-mining exercises and always has to end with some sweeping away of any kind of detail under God's carpet. You and Sideshow Bob Hitchen might regard such stuff as science, but it's pseudo-science if we're being extremely charitable. From what you've written, I don't think you're able to distinguish between the two.<
The fundementalists are the mainstream Christians. They are the ones who can show that their beliefs are the same as the beliefs held by Christians down the ages. Rowan Williams and those odd Americans are just Jonny come latelys.
As for flaws in Evolution, it has one massive flaw. There is no mechanism by which new information can be introduced to the genome. And if you have no new information then there is no Evolution. That is it! I have worked in the comms industry for many years and you do not get information out of nothing, certainly not from errors. Errors destroy information and mutations are errors. Nor does time cause information to grow. The only thing that increases information is intelligent input. If you really apply science to Evolution you will see that Evolution just cannot happen.
>Because it says "Copyright King James Bible".<
I doubt it. In any case if the Bible is translated into English don't you think the translator is entitled to say so on the title page and to copyright their work?
>Because God didn't dictate it in English.<
We all know it wasn't written in English. What has that to do with anything?
>Because there are several versions that don't agree.<
Really? Are you sure about that? Have you ever read it.
>Because God hasn't submitted to court a copyright infringement case.<
>Because God hasn't said he did<
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Since God wrote it He clearly says He wrote it.
>I know where you're going on this one, and at the end of this little cherry-picking excursion there are a few choice words from MC Hawking.<
Really? I see you still know it all.
>As science reveals more of how the universe works, the label which reads "it's God's work, don't worry about it" gets stuck to something else mankind wouldn't have known anything about had it been up to the creationists. But for the creationists it's turtles all the way down, each one claiming to represent the deity of choice.<
I see you know nothing about the history of science either.
>Oh, and don't forget the scientific work done by people who just happened to be born into various other religions or belief systems, particularly the ones who actually provided much of the basis of what we actually regard as science. Or don't their contributions count?<
Ah, so you admit that people who aren't atheists can also be scientists. Could it be that those Christians who are also scientists and who have looked at ToE and found it implausible will find your acceptance. Or does that offend your religion too much.
>I presume you're reading the original signed copy from your private collection, although since we're still waiting for that refutation of the whole heaven vs. sky correspondence, perhaps you only ever leaf through it for the pictures.<
Ah, the modest Badger who knows it all.
>And the neo-creationists want us to understand nothing at all. Exactly why their delusions should be kept as far away from the science curriculum as possible. Indeed, as far away from the classroom as possible, given the level of critical thinking on display here:<
Tell you what, if you can demonstrate Evolution you can include it in the 'science curriculum'. As science Evolution just doesn't work. Time takes away information from the genome, it never adds it. The reason that genetic engineering is felt to be necessary is because selective breeding inevitably introduces harmful characteristics as well as those desired. Evolution is scientifically implausible.
>Surely any omnipotent deity wouldn't need to ask, but I imagine that any such entity, if bothered to consider such matters, would be more favourably disposed to people who tried to understand the universe than people who just chanted the same nonsense over and over again as if it meant something.<
If you read the Bible you will find that God asks the Cain "what have you done" not because God did not know but in order to impress on Cain what he had done. In the same way at the end of time God will present men with their actions.
Of course, modern science is the result of Christians seeking to understand God's creation. If it weren't for Christians and their belief in a logical creation created by a logical God you wouldn't have science.
>P.S. Amusing that "God" posting as an anonymous coward spells out the mainstream Christian view to the neo-creationists. Classy comment title, too.<
Silly and vulgar, it showed a marked lack of thought.
>Uh, how do you know God told me when *I* don't know any such thing???<
You've heard of the Bible? That is where God has told you. You may wish to ignore God and the Bible, and in the process diminish yourself, but you have still been told. Indeed the whole of Creation tells you that there is a creator but you choose to believe your silly fairy story of Evolution. You are without excuse.
>So if God also created time and is therefore outside time, why must the universe have been created WHILE TIME EXISTED?<
Because that is what God tells you.
>The Big Bang theory is that before the Big Bang, there was no time. Therefore no "before the big bang". <
The Big Bang cannot even properly be called a theory, like Evolution it is an idea put forward by those who are afraid to even think of God. You can call it a hypothesis if you like, it is just more silliness.
>Now as to "where did all that mass come from", well gravitational potential energy is negative. E=mc^2 tells us mass is positive energy.<
Remember, theories come and go and science proves only one thing - that we know very little and understand even less.
>Are you calling yourself a five-year old or are you saying that I've seen through your spurious "reasoning"?<
You have difficulty understanding what I'm saying? Do you not remember the story of the emperor's new clothes. Even a five year old can see through your spurious reasoning.
>No need for God at the moment.<
Those breaths you have taken while reading this, God has given you, He has sustained your life. When you stand before Him and He asks you what you have done with what He has given you, what will you tell Him?
Since God has told you He did it ...
Who created what? If you are asking who created God the answer is no one. It is only if something or someone has a beginning they require to be created. Since God also created time He is outside of time and existed before time.
Actually those who _believe_ in ToE believe in fairy tales, some believers in ToE even believe in aliens planting life on this planet. You believe in Evolution although you cannot show any evidence that it occurs - it's hardly scientific if you cannot observe it.
Bob, I can't remember if it was a five year old who pointed out that the emperor was starkers but sometimes children can see through piffle the learned throw up about their ideas. <G>
>When faced with something they cannot come to terms with let alone begin to understand people first close their hearts and minds and then lash out in anger at those who and that which represents the true source of all wisdom.<
Yes, that's their problem, look how they react when their fairy story belief is challenged.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021