Menu Bar
Kiuball's Comments
Re: Maplewood Drug Bust
Looks like the police is just bringing their battering ram back to the car.
By: Kiuball
Re: Mr T: The T in IT
Storage Virtualization is kind of like having one hard drive, and being able to subdivide it between other computers.
Now-a-days, you can run a lot of "virtual computers" out of one physical one. Of course this explaination's over simplified. If anyone wants to expand on it, please do.
Now-a-days, you can run a lot of "virtual computers" out of one physical one. Of course this explaination's over simplified. If anyone wants to expand on it, please do.
By: Kiuball
Re: Tetris Ninjas: Live Action Tetris
The Japanese would've done a way better job. You wouldn't have to turn your head sideways, nor try to imagine that this was cool because of your deep obsession with Tetris.
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
I agree that God does belong outside of science, if you were to figure out how he works (with the assumption that he does exist), that would limit his power, and therefore create a paradox. It was never my intent to argue that there is a God... just that I don't believe that Evolution is science. I believe it to be as much of a religion as any of the other major religions of the world. And people don't challenge the notion because it's taught in schools.
As I've said before, science is our friend... the PROCESS to find truth. But there are fundemental problems with how Evolution has become considered as truth.
As I've said before, science is our friend... the PROCESS to find truth. But there are fundemental problems with how Evolution has become considered as truth.
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
Okay, I'll concede that folds and faults may change the order of strata before we are able to find them, but some of the biggest problems that I have with the Geologic Column are in the presuppostitions that it's based on.
First, there is a uniformitarian mind set. In other words, they believe that those strata could've only happened in similar ways that we can see in today's environment. But that would almost work against itself, considering the presupposition that the earth is millions of years old, where conditions of life are most likely not similar to that of our own... but I digress.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Law of Superpostition state that "layers are arranged in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top, unless later processes disturb this arrangement." -(Wikipedia) The main problem with the law of superposition is that it takes into account only ONE particular case of sedimentation. That is the case of an absence of current. It also implies that when a lower strata forms, there is no strata on top of it.
Superposition ignores the general case of sedimentation in moving water and most bodies of water have moving water. In moving water, sediment layers form horizontally (not vertically). These layers are being formed at pretty much the same time.
Not only this, but just how did they date each geologic strata? Why they used index fossils... "any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment." (Brittanica) More specifically, they use marine fossils, as they've fit nicely for their definition. "The creatures thought to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and are thus placed at the bottom of the column of layers. The creatures thought to have evolved later are higher up and so on. This has led many competent, accredited scientists to object, as this poses a circular argument: how can evolution be the basis for geologic conclusions while geology is taught as the basic evidence for evolution?" -(Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" Bioscience, vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714)
Ooh, which reminds me, PBS had a series on Evolution back in 2001, in which over 100 scientists either don't agree with evolution, or have some major problems with it. Since then 600 scientist have publically followed suit. But has anyone here heard of that? Probably not, as the media didn't really want to publicize this part of the series too much. (Tangent, I know, but I'm tired, and I don't remember who else's post I wanted to mention this to)
http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/meyer092801.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747
First, there is a uniformitarian mind set. In other words, they believe that those strata could've only happened in similar ways that we can see in today's environment. But that would almost work against itself, considering the presupposition that the earth is millions of years old, where conditions of life are most likely not similar to that of our own... but I digress.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Law of Superpostition state that "layers are arranged in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top, unless later processes disturb this arrangement." -(Wikipedia) The main problem with the law of superposition is that it takes into account only ONE particular case of sedimentation. That is the case of an absence of current. It also implies that when a lower strata forms, there is no strata on top of it.
Superposition ignores the general case of sedimentation in moving water and most bodies of water have moving water. In moving water, sediment layers form horizontally (not vertically). These layers are being formed at pretty much the same time.
Not only this, but just how did they date each geologic strata? Why they used index fossils... "any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment." (Brittanica) More specifically, they use marine fossils, as they've fit nicely for their definition. "The creatures thought to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and are thus placed at the bottom of the column of layers. The creatures thought to have evolved later are higher up and so on. This has led many competent, accredited scientists to object, as this poses a circular argument: how can evolution be the basis for geologic conclusions while geology is taught as the basic evidence for evolution?" -(Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" Bioscience, vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714)
Ooh, which reminds me, PBS had a series on Evolution back in 2001, in which over 100 scientists either don't agree with evolution, or have some major problems with it. Since then 600 scientist have publically followed suit. But has anyone here heard of that? Probably not, as the media didn't really want to publicize this part of the series too much. (Tangent, I know, but I'm tired, and I don't remember who else's post I wanted to mention this to)
http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/meyer092801.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
If you think there's no difference between the claim that ALL life on earth has a common ancestor, and the claim that all dogs/wolves/coyotes came from a current ancestor (most likely a quadraped that barks) well then, I don't think there's much that I can say in response.
According to your link... 5 says there are many transitional fossils.
~~~
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. HOWEVER, DIRECT LINEAGES ARE NOT REQUIRED; they could NOT be verified even if found.(???) What a transitional fossil is, IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PREDICTS, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
~~~
I'm sorry, but isn't that totally circular thinking? "In keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts," but without the theory of evolution, what would your claims be? This bird here has funny skin on it's feet... kinda like a reptile (OH... they must be related). If you were from another planet, and found a pocket watch on the ground... analyzed it, disected it, and found out the elemental composition of it, then found yet another (but slightly different) pocket watch and did likewise... it may at seem like a fair asumption that the two were related. But it's not because one begot the other, remember, direct lineage may not be required, but it's because they were handcrafted by the same creator.
(I'll try my best to get to the others in a bit... this is more of a hobby than my entire life. But I promise you, I intend to read through and address each of your counter points. This is fun isn't it? I haven't been on a forum this much since I was killing time in college.)
According to your link... 5 says there are many transitional fossils.
~~~
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. HOWEVER, DIRECT LINEAGES ARE NOT REQUIRED; they could NOT be verified even if found.(???) What a transitional fossil is, IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PREDICTS, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
~~~
I'm sorry, but isn't that totally circular thinking? "In keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts," but without the theory of evolution, what would your claims be? This bird here has funny skin on it's feet... kinda like a reptile (OH... they must be related). If you were from another planet, and found a pocket watch on the ground... analyzed it, disected it, and found out the elemental composition of it, then found yet another (but slightly different) pocket watch and did likewise... it may at seem like a fair asumption that the two were related. But it's not because one begot the other, remember, direct lineage may not be required, but it's because they were handcrafted by the same creator.
(I'll try my best to get to the others in a bit... this is more of a hobby than my entire life. But I promise you, I intend to read through and address each of your counter points. This is fun isn't it? I haven't been on a forum this much since I was killing time in college.)
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
I think it's important to remember that any and all conclusions derived from scientific experiments can at best called subjective facts.
Hear me out. In the scientific method, one first makes a hypothesis, makes experiments to test the hypothesis, and makes conclusions drawn from them. That's all well and good, however, how do we make an absolute statement out of this, without making an infinate amount of experiments... taking into account each and every possible variable? That my friends is where the limitations of science are held. You can either make general statements, or at best make very very specific ones... the middle ground has too much room for error.
Ex: gravity... You hold something in your hand, you drop it, you see it fall. Test it over and over, and 1000 of 1000 times, you get the same result. Therefore, you can fairly make the assumption that when you drop something, it'll fall down. But never once in those 1000 experiments was a helium balloon dropped, nor was tin foil dropped in a tank of gas that was denser/heavier than air (saw that clip either here or some other link dump site), nor were the tests done in on moons with a mere fraction of earth's gravity.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with science. Science is our friend, although it may not seem like it when it's finals time. But we need to remember that there are limitations. The "Laws" of Physics are turned upside down when brought to the microscopic level. Biomedical testing goes through many many stages, because chemicals don't react to all animals the same way.
What I propose, is that you be careful of the absolutism in the conclusions that you draw from science... Make more experiments, with an objective mindset, THEN and only then, bring your results in together to make up your conclusions.
Hear me out. In the scientific method, one first makes a hypothesis, makes experiments to test the hypothesis, and makes conclusions drawn from them. That's all well and good, however, how do we make an absolute statement out of this, without making an infinate amount of experiments... taking into account each and every possible variable? That my friends is where the limitations of science are held. You can either make general statements, or at best make very very specific ones... the middle ground has too much room for error.
Ex: gravity... You hold something in your hand, you drop it, you see it fall. Test it over and over, and 1000 of 1000 times, you get the same result. Therefore, you can fairly make the assumption that when you drop something, it'll fall down. But never once in those 1000 experiments was a helium balloon dropped, nor was tin foil dropped in a tank of gas that was denser/heavier than air (saw that clip either here or some other link dump site), nor were the tests done in on moons with a mere fraction of earth's gravity.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with science. Science is our friend, although it may not seem like it when it's finals time. But we need to remember that there are limitations. The "Laws" of Physics are turned upside down when brought to the microscopic level. Biomedical testing goes through many many stages, because chemicals don't react to all animals the same way.
What I propose, is that you be careful of the absolutism in the conclusions that you draw from science... Make more experiments, with an objective mindset, THEN and only then, bring your results in together to make up your conclusions.
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
A benevolent God allows "torture" to happen because the only alternative (besides taking away free will) would be to punish every and all that is not perfectly good.
By: Kiuball
Re: Love how the fundies love to pick and choose...
(As I'm addressing biblical material, it might be moot for many to read this. But hey, give it a shot. I might be crazy, and you might get a laugh out of it)
I wish I had a hundred hours to try address all this stuff. I don't agree with everything in the video, but to make it easier for the kids to remember, Brontosaurus will work.
First off, why would there be a discrepancy between dinosaurs and dragons. Many different cultures around the world have stories of dragons. But for some reason, I don't remember seeing any dragon bones in the museums... only dinosaurs'. Is it too far of a stretch possibly think that they might be of the same kind? (oh but it must be, being that scientists tell us that all dinosaurs were extint MILLIONS of years ago.) *sorry, i'll try to cut the sarcasm down a notch* The etymology of the word dinosaur comes from Greek, translated as terrible lizard. Over the course of the english language, it's taken on the connotation of being extinct, or just really old "that old dinosaur doesn't know what he's talking about."
Okay, so... if one does look deeper into the text in the book of Job, chapters 40 and 41 describe 2 different creatures. In 40, the Behemoth is mentioned starting at verse 15. Characteristics include: eating grass (either herbivorous or omnivorous), a tail that swings like a cedar [tree], bones like bronze, limbs like iron, and close knit thighs (not the most mobile). Highly unlikely it's an elephant (with a tail like a tree?). Others who argue it being a dinosaur might say Brontosaurus, but an open minded paleontologist migh call it a Sauropod.
Chapter 41 then describes a creature called the leviathan. It's in water, incredible in size and strength, most likely has jaws of fangs, and as described by indigoandblack, has scales, smoking nostrils, glowing eyes, breathes fire... basically, a creature without equal. Some might say that it's similar to a Plesiosaur.
If anyone was wondering why these chapters were in the bible at all, it's to show the power of God the creator. No man can overpower these two examples, but God created them, and is therefore even more powerful.
Oh yeah, if you're wondering about how these dinosarus/dragons might've gotten to their mamoth size... many reptiles don't have an adolecent period in their lifetime (where they would stop growing in size). I'm not saying that they grow like crazy, but if given the chance to have a long life (just for example, adam the first man lived till around 900 years old, moses, around 400's) well then, they might become rather massive don't you think?
~Crazy Kiuball
I wish I had a hundred hours to try address all this stuff. I don't agree with everything in the video, but to make it easier for the kids to remember, Brontosaurus will work.
First off, why would there be a discrepancy between dinosaurs and dragons. Many different cultures around the world have stories of dragons. But for some reason, I don't remember seeing any dragon bones in the museums... only dinosaurs'. Is it too far of a stretch possibly think that they might be of the same kind? (oh but it must be, being that scientists tell us that all dinosaurs were extint MILLIONS of years ago.) *sorry, i'll try to cut the sarcasm down a notch* The etymology of the word dinosaur comes from Greek, translated as terrible lizard. Over the course of the english language, it's taken on the connotation of being extinct, or just really old "that old dinosaur doesn't know what he's talking about."
Okay, so... if one does look deeper into the text in the book of Job, chapters 40 and 41 describe 2 different creatures. In 40, the Behemoth is mentioned starting at verse 15. Characteristics include: eating grass (either herbivorous or omnivorous), a tail that swings like a cedar [tree], bones like bronze, limbs like iron, and close knit thighs (not the most mobile). Highly unlikely it's an elephant (with a tail like a tree?). Others who argue it being a dinosaur might say Brontosaurus, but an open minded paleontologist migh call it a Sauropod.
Chapter 41 then describes a creature called the leviathan. It's in water, incredible in size and strength, most likely has jaws of fangs, and as described by indigoandblack, has scales, smoking nostrils, glowing eyes, breathes fire... basically, a creature without equal. Some might say that it's similar to a Plesiosaur.
If anyone was wondering why these chapters were in the bible at all, it's to show the power of God the creator. No man can overpower these two examples, but God created them, and is therefore even more powerful.
Oh yeah, if you're wondering about how these dinosarus/dragons might've gotten to their mamoth size... many reptiles don't have an adolecent period in their lifetime (where they would stop growing in size). I'm not saying that they grow like crazy, but if given the chance to have a long life (just for example, adam the first man lived till around 900 years old, moses, around 400's) well then, they might become rather massive don't you think?
~Crazy Kiuball
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
I just want to squeeze this in before leaving work.
No disrespect taken, but are these "1000's of ways" really thought through in an objective manner, or are they mostly within the confines of the shadowing ideas that the earth is "Millions of years old?" Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, look into what you've been told, and THEN decide if you would make the same conclusions. If you do, and continue to see things the same way, more power to you. Then you can give more first or second hand experiences to proove your point, rather than to say "1000's of examples."
There's way more stuff going on in the world than what's presented to you. To go on a slight tangent, why is it that most of the industrialized world's media not showing the horrors going on in the rest of the world (particually Darfar right now). Sure, local news deals with local events. But just because certain issues aren't up to your attention doesn't mean that they don't exist. And if only some information is presented to you, is it fair to make a judgement call without looking for any validity from the opposing sides?
~Kiuball
No disrespect taken, but are these "1000's of ways" really thought through in an objective manner, or are they mostly within the confines of the shadowing ideas that the earth is "Millions of years old?" Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, look into what you've been told, and THEN decide if you would make the same conclusions. If you do, and continue to see things the same way, more power to you. Then you can give more first or second hand experiences to proove your point, rather than to say "1000's of examples."
There's way more stuff going on in the world than what's presented to you. To go on a slight tangent, why is it that most of the industrialized world's media not showing the horrors going on in the rest of the world (particually Darfar right now). Sure, local news deals with local events. But just because certain issues aren't up to your attention doesn't mean that they don't exist. And if only some information is presented to you, is it fair to make a judgement call without looking for any validity from the opposing sides?
~Kiuball
By: Kiuball
Re: Fox News Blasphemy Challenge
Technically, yes, but that doesn't make Buddhism any less of a religion. By the way, I call him Sid for short.
By: Kiuball
Re: Fox News Blasphemy Challenge
If you look into what they have, it's really subjective. There's no proof of evolution in fossils, just that things died. Most everything else is conjecture.
I'm telling you, put the effort in, and actually look, and you might be surprised as to what general media tells us.
I'm telling you, put the effort in, and actually look, and you might be surprised as to what general media tells us.
By: Kiuball
Re: Friends of God: Refuting Evolution
As a Christian who believes in aspects of Creationism, most of what I say will go on to deaf ears, but I feel it important to at least make this a less one sided debate. And I'll leave any talk about the Bible or Christianity OUT of this post, as most would glaze over and be defensive about it.
This will sound like I'm attacking Evolution, but I from my experiences, I've come to believe that most public schools have used it to "brainwash" our public. I was in these public schools too, so I know exactly what the Biology curriculum had in the Taxonomy units (by the way, I did rather well back then too). I only started looking into the differences of Evolution and Creationism in college (extracurricular learning of course). But I digress:
Contrary to what most textbooks will tell you, "The Theory of Evolution" (where all plant and animal life came from the same ancestor) is a religion (people believe in it while not being scientific FACT). Whereas the term evolution, (many times specifically labelled "Micro-Evolution") variations within kinds of plants/animals over time is never debated.
If there were any genuine examples in the fossil record of "missing links" (which there should be many, because there's so many variations within a kind found on earth now) there wouldn't be much of a valid argument now between Creation/Evolution.
There are discrepancies as to how old the earth is and when the dawn of life are in the "scientific" community. Some use the Geological Column (however different places on Earth have different strata or layers in them and can't be used as a perfectly objective timeline). Many use carbon dating, which is good (under normal conditions), however not knowing atmospheric conditions in the past really hinders our results now. But hiding behind a cloud idea of "millions of years" shadows this point. By the way, there's numerous examples of carbon dating error found on the same fossils, as well as LIVING animals (carbon dating is supposed to tell you when something died).
I've got way more info if anyone's interested, but for a post, this is getting long, and I'm sure a lot have already stopped reading. I'll just leave with one more thing to think about. There's major money in the field of trying to proove human evolution. Mostly backed by grants (private and government), archeologists and explorers are expected to find more evidence to build up the case of evolution, resulting in the discovery of Java Man, Lucy, Piltdown Man, and others... but don't hold up to much scrutiny. Most are best logically explained as 1) All human, 2) All ape, or 3) Bits and pieces of the two.
Best regards,
Kiuball
This will sound like I'm attacking Evolution, but I from my experiences, I've come to believe that most public schools have used it to "brainwash" our public. I was in these public schools too, so I know exactly what the Biology curriculum had in the Taxonomy units (by the way, I did rather well back then too). I only started looking into the differences of Evolution and Creationism in college (extracurricular learning of course). But I digress:
Contrary to what most textbooks will tell you, "The Theory of Evolution" (where all plant and animal life came from the same ancestor) is a religion (people believe in it while not being scientific FACT). Whereas the term evolution, (many times specifically labelled "Micro-Evolution") variations within kinds of plants/animals over time is never debated.
If there were any genuine examples in the fossil record of "missing links" (which there should be many, because there's so many variations within a kind found on earth now) there wouldn't be much of a valid argument now between Creation/Evolution.
There are discrepancies as to how old the earth is and when the dawn of life are in the "scientific" community. Some use the Geological Column (however different places on Earth have different strata or layers in them and can't be used as a perfectly objective timeline). Many use carbon dating, which is good (under normal conditions), however not knowing atmospheric conditions in the past really hinders our results now. But hiding behind a cloud idea of "millions of years" shadows this point. By the way, there's numerous examples of carbon dating error found on the same fossils, as well as LIVING animals (carbon dating is supposed to tell you when something died).
I've got way more info if anyone's interested, but for a post, this is getting long, and I'm sure a lot have already stopped reading. I'll just leave with one more thing to think about. There's major money in the field of trying to proove human evolution. Mostly backed by grants (private and government), archeologists and explorers are expected to find more evidence to build up the case of evolution, resulting in the discovery of Java Man, Lucy, Piltdown Man, and others... but don't hold up to much scrutiny. Most are best logically explained as 1) All human, 2) All ape, or 3) Bits and pieces of the two.
Best regards,
Kiuball
By: Kiuball
