JC1

for those who said Bush is a hypocrite for sacrificing american's lives to die in the front line of battle over seas and trying to save the fetuses; i want you to realize the difference - those men and women had a choice. they signed a contract to be part of the war and to obtain world peace. Those babies didn't have a choice to be killed by their own mothers or doctors and nurses. when a doctor injects a needle or vaccum into the mother's womb to annihilate that embryo, they do try to defend themselves. they understand the logic of flight and fight, even if they are only a few tiny cells big. so that being said, if you don't support the war, tell those people to stay home and not sign up for military duty.

If we take 1 million monkeys and gave each of them a typewriter and they each type one word per minute, the chance of all of them combined typing one of Shakespeare's sonnet that consist of 300 words would take them 10 X 10^50 years <-that's 10 with 50 zeros behind it... "In a study published today in the journal Science, a team of researchers says the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html ..now the human DNA consist of 3 billion letters...how long do you think it took for it all to come about to form human life just by chance? Is 20 billion years really enough? http://www.genome.gov/11006929

I understand that there have been countless and useless discussion about ID, but i thought this one would be more interesting to share, or at least useful enough to educate ID fellows here, not to be like me before, to understand more about ID to avoid spouting nonsense and strawmen in their arguments in the future. I'm just surprised that my thread was instantly locked in a first glance without thorough consideration. My intention is not to support schools teaching creationism by ignorant and presumptious ideas, but I support theories that testifies to real evidences that points to something else. Read Bruce Gordon's brief intro to what they are researching. He heads up teams of scientists who works on the science and empirical data that proves the unlikeliness of random chance in many of the current theories. That SHOULD be taught in conjunction to other theories in my opinion. What is the use to only teaching one side, when there are very legitamate truth on the other? this is the problem I would have with schools who take a 'narrow minded' stance in limiting the lessons to only the 'popular' theory. People must understand, 'evolution' is just best theory we have to explain the occurences of our natural world at this time. If we stop there, then we will never get the more perfect and absolute understanding of nature's processes. Creationism didn't satisfy me about how the earth works, evolution, only explains a little better, but I believe they will find even better theories therefore they should present in schools ID materials that doesn't have any religious biasis, just facts and figures to help give students more tools to work from.

Bruce Gordon made a presentation in one of my anthropology courses. He used to head up the Polany Center at baylor whose purpose is the show things like the mathmatical impossibility that the earth was created by random chance. . .anyways. . .: ----------- http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/ResearchNews1-01Gordon.html Design theory has had considerable difficulty gaining a hearing in academic contexts, as evidenced most recently by the the Polanyi Center affair at Baylor University. One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world. A small but significant step forward was made when design research was recognized as a legitimate form of academic inquiry, with a rightful place on the university campus, by the external review committee's report on the Polanyi Center. But inclusion of design theory as part of the standard discourse of the scientific community, if it ever happens, will be the result of a long and difficult process of quality research and publication. It also will be the result of overcoming the stigma that has become attached to design research because of the anti-evolutionary diatribes of some of its proponents on the one hand and its appropriation for the purpose of Christian apologetics on the other. In these latter regards, the odds are stacked against it from the start. Having said this much, let me make it clear that for those of us with a commitment to the Christian faith, the questions that design theory addresses are in a certain sense natural, and recognition of this might even motivate its pursuit. Insofar as the results of such research have a place in broader scientific discussion, though, they must be presented and defended on the basis of reasons that are accessible to all. If design theory is to make a contribution to science, it must be worth pursuing on the basis of its own merits, not as an exercise in Christian 'cultural renewal,' the weight of which it cannot bear. And the reason it cannot bear this weight is that the technical work of design theory neither entails nor is entailed by a broadly theistic conception of the world, even though it does add some interesting wrinkles to a discussion of the relationship between science and religion. Let me explain. First of all, what has come to be called 'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whether it will be found. Secondly, if it is granted that teleology might be an objective part of nature, then it also has to be acknowledged that design research can be carried out in a manner that does not violate methodological naturalism as a philosophical constraint on science. I have no attachment one way or the other to methodological naturalism as a metascientific principle, but honesty demands the recognition that design-theoretic research does not logically entail its denial. Thirdly, design research is compatible with a realistic teleology like that of the vitalism espoused by thinkers such as Henri Bergson and Hans Driesch. It is compatible with the suggestion that life on earth was purposely seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos (though this leaves another rather pressing question unanswered). It is compatible with a theistic- evolutionary perspective of continuous development in which the unfolding of the universe and of life was implicit in finely-tuned. initial conditions. On a less sanguine note, it is logically compatible with "creationism' in, a variety of forms, though many of these can readily be dismissed on well-established scientific grounds. And there may be other metaphysical possibilities. Beyond this, adjudicating among these various metaphysical interpretations is a task that falls to philosophers and theologians and forms no part of any contribution to science that design theory might make. In conclusion, it is crucial to note that design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along- side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self- organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric. Intellectual honesty demands that the wide-range of flexibility as regards the interpretation and significance of design theory be made abundantly clear. The dutiful avoidance of dogmatism, an irenic attitude, and a healthy dose of humility will by themselves, I think, do much to dispel the controversy at Baylor and help open the doors for the acceptance of design theorists as dialogue partners in the wider academic community.

yes the person offering the challenge did an outstanding job at issuing a point you cannot counter well then you don't believe in the relativistic idea that there are no absolutes probably? you even have a slight doubt about something as simple an absolute as a count of 1-10? your existence shares no distinction from the existence of my fingers. It cannot be falsified whatsoever. I'd like to see you try to reason how I couldn't. Even when you don't absolutely know something doesn't mean there isn't an absolute truth to it. Faith is confidence in truth. It isn't an assumption made out of the whim. If you don't have the "competency" to recognize such things like the existence of God, then of course you would reject something true as something only made up by "assumptions". Your failure to see it as an absolute truth is a result of your own predisposition. Why are you apologizing? You think my faith will be changed by your false statements about faith, when you don't even realize the depth of faith? Unless you can you can really challenge what you call my "assumptions", there is no need for saying you are sorry.sorry. then I would imagine you would agree with the statement that: there are absolute truths, its just a matter of personal choice and experience to decide what is relatively true to you, although the truth was, is, and always will be what it is, absolute. well, I wanted to challenge with any relativists regarding my proposed topic but you don't believe in relativism. I'll find another thread next time where I can catch me some of them. Einstein theory still isn't practical to me or maybe to you and other people (i don't know). By practical I meant something you would use directly in your daily life, not theoretical calculations.

Pardon me for my timeliness because Relatively speaking I have little of it nowadays. Tell me how I am wrong? then these universally accepted truths supports the ideal that relativism of no absolute truth is wrong. I wouldn't reach the conclusion that there are no GR/SR, or no evolution..., but the point of these contests to show that noone can prove it is a point well made and worth reexamining. It is pointless to you until you realize where I am going with relativism. There are obvious separation between people who adhere to either belief, so there is a point you just have refused to recognize. I believe I have ten fingers, You can't prove that to be incorrect unless one is cut off. I think anyone who have seen my fingers will concede to my count of 10. Faith in what is true. If you don't have faith in truth, then you doubt what is real. "Practical"' date=' einsteins theory isn't practical to regular people, especially me and other people here. Now you know that i'm pointing towards relativism, the kind where someone says there are no absolute truths yes, excuse me for the confusion of relativity and relativism. You get my point, I'm not competent in grammar or semantics either, but you know where I am heading. I am so eager to discuss relativism I really didn't even pay attention to the more empirical concept of relativity. My topic is "The notion that there isn't any absolute truth is self defeating. People who upholds relativism of life errently loses reality in a whirl of deception"

Swansont, your call for me to demonstrate "technical competence" in (GR/SR) is funny. It's like someone who sticks their nose up against another person just because that person can't answer your baseball trivia. If I never cared for that sport, of course I can't demonstrate "technical" competence in it. But there are "universal truths" to everything and I can still discuss the sport with you if you'll agree. I motioned for the relativists to start so that we could work from their table. But since nobody jumps in, okay I will start: "The notion that there isn't any absolute truth is self defeating. People who upholds relativism of life errently loses reality in a whirl of deception"

The relativity I speak of is the general notion that there isn't any absolute truth. Formulaic relativity just accounts for the variable conditions and its appropriate laws to tabulate what is or will be observed. These types of relativity is still subject to an absolute truth under the formulas that govern it. Your knowledge of SR/ GR in GPS isn't applicable to the bolded definition I wish to discuss. They are sovereigned under an accepted truth or else you could never study it and make definite conclusions in the first place. If you don't even agree with that, then you are even more ignorant and goggled then I initially perceived. I'll just point you to try and win to defend Relativity to get 50,0000 dollars ( http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm ) "general notion that there are no absolute truth" is what I am relatively speaking of. What must be frustrating to you is that people find real truth from divine inspiration so much so that you have to make futile demands that people should believe otherwise. If you can "competently" disprove it then someone may take notice of it someday.

oh yeah, it does. To any relativists, I would like to discuss with you the relativistic notions. But I do not care for einstein's theory of relativity that has absolutely no practical application to my life or yours. Lets keep it on the plane of real life relevance. Let's get the ball rolling...

Another one: US.$50,000.00 to defend Relativity http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm Awards of up to US.$50,000.00 each are hereby offered by the author, Cameron Y. Rebigsol, of this web site to people who can successfully defend Relativity - the most dominating theory in physics - in mathematical terms, and thus disprove the mathematical arguments made against relativity shown in Rebigsol's text MATHEMATICAL INVALIDITY OF RELATIVITY published at this web site.

Isn't it Pseudoscience and Metaphysics forum? In fact, i would like to ask for arguments from the athiests who go against his existence. From God abidding standpoint, there are overwhelmed evidences for His existence such as pre-scientific foreknowlege, prophesies fulfilled, indestructibility, chronological order as recorded by the Jews... the one nation who in themselves are a miracle by their very existence. Attacked, crushed, banished from their own land and returned. Therefore, I believe in God. I don't understand when a man who have utmost education in science and mathematic claim that there's no existence of God, Hawking..etc....It' s like a man stepping into a nice home and saw many beautiful things inside it and claim that those things just popped out of nowhere. I believe in God because inside everyone of us - our mind, our heart, and our soul there's a quest for the ultimate perfection and for the beautiful. We are an image of him, for this reason we search for this ultimate perfection, we're a part of him. I don't want to go too far about a religion since it will be considered preaching which is not so welcomed in this forum. But i do want the explanation from the athiest standpoint. That's my point which is not pointless, is it?

Have you proven that God does not exist?

list 2 things in your life u consider sine qua non... Mine: 1) God's Word. 2) My morals and values stemming from it.

This is where creationists usually get it twisted and telling everybody that it takes faith for evolutionists to believe in macroevolution. However, I got it. Thanks for sharing.

Would you mind to find me the links to those posts?? i am interested in reading them. Thank you in advance.

I thought you were talking about the default pwd of the AP itself. Well, i never knew that there are the default WEP pwd. AP usually have a feature that you can input the passphrase (of your own word) and from that it generates the 4 random hex number as the encryption keys one of which you would use and set in the supplicants.

If that was the case, I'd rather use wikipedia or answers.com. Quick and right to what i ask for.

Just one more question to clear out my doubt. Are the dating methods based on constant rate? If they are, I find the contradiction to the explanation of the earth and the moon issue above that the rate is not constant and we cannot do a linear extrapolation. I think I almost understand what you've explained. very close. Thank you guys

But dangerious at the same time. Very true.

Not all true. Last time i checked, it (ieee) asked me to purchase the articles or still requires you to be their member. And in the very first page, the return result are all books with table contents and abstracts.

I can see that most of people here are talking about pulling this and that scientific sources from google. I just don't understand. Don't you think that sounds bitter? I personally don't really use google for scientific info due to the fact that the result out of it doesn't seem to be credible and reliable. My university’s library is a 7 story building open 24 hours with over 10 million books and countless articles you can find in their database and online...which keep me up to date in my field of emphasis and are far more accredited than those from google. Now anyone tells me why should i trust google as a credible source of a particular field of interests?

Don't be hating. I'm just pointing out the obvious.