Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
is like trying to put the sun in orbit around the moon---
HACKWARDS!
Darwin is an assteroid----klunker....
no fuel---lotta assh/slag!
Halebopps!
We also need to look at how computers and networks evolve. What new hypotheses about the evolutionary process, which after all underlies all of biology, can we formulate? In the information world there are survivals and extinctions. We read about these more on the front page and the economics page than on the science page, but these are in fact evolutionary processes occurring in real time.
We can see in computer systems the appearance and interaction of distinct genera - for example, the PC, the Macintosh, and the Unix machines are distinct genera. And there are even distinct species, so within the PC genus we have IBM and Dell and Compaq and Hewlett-Packard and so forth. On the network, we see viruses appearing, and we also see defensive immune systems evolving to recognize and neutralize or eliminate these viruses. Studying these processes may in fact tell us a lot about how biological systems have evolved.
The newest Internet development, of course, is the introduction of autonomous agents, such as applets and cookies. It will be very interesting to see what happens to these as they circulate around. Do they become parasites? Do they become new organisms? Do they create problems or open up opportunities, and do they lead to further diversification?
Seems evolutionary to me. But we've been doing this in our manufacturing areas for the last 20 years. What is non-scientific about it (or non-Darwinian as you call it)?
How about a microsoft w/o a Bill Gates---CHAOS(mutation/selection)!
Why should I posit an answer? Your reply exquisitely demonstrates my exact point in my post 433
You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science.
And of course, the size of the Sun has not been been a topic with widely varying answers at least since shortly after it was accepted that the Earth went around it.
What's next in your fantasy universe, a flat Earth?
Surely you are not trying to imply that fusion and the resultant energy release which proceedes from it is somehow afunction of matter spotaneously generating itself without expense! Making Helium from of Hydrogen expends and releases frictional and photon energy, it does not create matter. Is this what forms the basis of your "open system" position? If so, you may wish to refresh your memory with regard to the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, and mass-balance.
The heat which warms our planet and proceedes from the sun should be evidence enough to the junior physicist that energy is expended from a finite energy producing source. The sun does not recapture energy lost to entropy.
Whether one generates heat from burning methane or from a fusion reaction, both systems deplete their inherent mass as energy is released to entropy. As was pointed out to you in the orignal post, the rate of solar burn is able to be measured. The Sun is depleting is resources at a measure-able rate.
By definition the Sun is losing its mass and with it, its size at a measureable rate, and if the rate observed today is the same as the rate that has been, the Earth would be uninhabitable at a fixed point in the past due to the size of solar mass as yet unconsumed. Fusion does not change classical principles of mass-balance. You, like balrog666 might want to write to Starfleet Academy and ask for a refund.
Where "flat Earth" history is concerned, those who promoted it (e.g., Lactantius c. 245-325 A.D. and Cosmas Indicopleustes in the 6th century) were identified as heretics by early Church fathers, and their writings were shelved and decried. Your knowledge of the intellectual history of the church ignores Judeo-Christian scripturual references to the round Earth (Isaiah 40:22), and evidently stretches only so far back as to 18th-19th century myths promoted by novelists like Washington Irving.
It is you whose pretense to knowledge alludes to "history" as imagined in a novelist's "fantasy," not I.
I believe that you were the one that implied that anything non-Darwinian was not science. All I meant was that I see nothing unscientific or non-Darwinian in the two quotes. Like I said, we've been looking at this in my workplace for two decades. It's old news.
(I caught your Darwininian pun by the way. Very clever.)
I think you're baiting me. No amount of computer code compares to God's Creation. But I know, that you know, that you already know this.
Not really. As long as a theory is testable and falsifiable it has a shot. What have you got?
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern age
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made/REDACTED these absolutes subordinate--relative--'non-existant' and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!!
You think science/Creation is compatable to a materialistc cult/lie/heresy?
Touche, and thank you. Your statement just proved my point, even as it affirmed my original premise! Glad you agree. And you know what, Cytochrome C is only one of millions of specialized proteins that makes your existence, nay -- even your ability to post on FR -- fundamentally possible.
You were the one making the probabilities arguments in the first place. I welcome them, particularly where premises of evolution abut statistical impossibility. Here and in this instance, you have both acquitted yourself and contradicted yourself in the same breath! Quite a contorted intellectual feat for an evolutionist, I must say.
What a shame that by extention you still cling to such a random, purposeless view to your own living, breathing, aerobic existence.
45% creationists/science(sane/normal)...
45% creation and evolutioned(confused/schizoids)...
10% hard core atheists/materialists---EVOLUTION only whacks!
If you can't distinguish the difference between discussions pertaining to the strength of the magnetic moment of a solar-orbiting body from that of polar shifts in the moment itself, then Captain Kirk has evidently done you a severe academic dis-service.
While I never guessed that adherants to evolutionary dogma would become quite so philosophically unglued even as their arguments continually erode from beneath them, I'll happily leave it to your own intellectual void to ponder the Earth orbiting Saturn.
I think your use of the plural (in "references") is incorrect. Isaiah 40:22 is the only passage I know of where the earth is described as a circle (not a "sphere"). Everywhere else, there are references to the earth's four corners, the ends of the earth, the pillars supporting the earth, and several statements that the earth is unmoveable. The New Testament states (twice) that from a high mountain one can see all the nations of the earth at one time.
As for the circle reference in Isaiah (which I believe is a unique anomaly in scripture), it was not impossible for ancients to observe that the earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse was in the shape of a circle. Thus it was quite possible for ancients to think of the earth as disk-shaped. Only a sea-faring people (like the Greeks) could also observe vanishing ship masts on the horizon and conclude that the earth was a sphere.
While you on the other hand must think the polar shift happens instantaneously without any variance of the field strength?
Sure, buddy, sure.
Let us go over this carefully
You made this general statement about believers---By opting out of the scientific process, people of faith will be unemployable in many areas of science and be isolated from a decision making role.
You can see how I understood what you were saying in my reply ---Well, there is your problem. You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science. Read Dr. James Shapiro, and/or you might actually read some of the links that Gore3000 has provided. Such as this one
You can see I interpret your general statement against believers as coming about due to their rejection of Darwinian concepts not their rejection of science. It would be you that equates the two.
Each and every reponse from you after that included ---I don't see anything non-Darwinian here.
In his commentary "The Third Way", Shapiro most definitely addressed concerns about Darwinian beliefs and demeanor in the debate. I repeat my statement. I believe that you consider any concern about or attack on Darwinian concepts as non-science.
The word circle in Hebrew, khug, is best translated in terms of sphericity or roundness.
But if you are implying that the authors of the Bible made stuff up as they went along based upon new scientific discoveries – explain the Star of Bethlehem…
It appears a group of ancient scientists made an important discovery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.