Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Who's got a Terrabyte? ;o)
| Who's got a Terrabyte? ;o) [message #57348] |
Mon, 29 August 2005 03:10  |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
a>
>
> How could we solve the flanging?
>
> COuld we say, copy all the drum tracks to an adjacent 7 group of tracks,
> slide em ahead, than sample slide back (Like UAD1 Situation) them before
> sending em to th
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Who's got a Terrabyte? ;o) [message #57387 is a reply to message #57378] |
Mon, 29 August 2005 15:50  |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>>>
>>>>>I've just bought these 2 x 250Gig drives. Plus my old 120Gig is still
in
>>>>>the box, in addition to my old old 27Gig... all up that's... err...
>>>> 647Gig!
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely somebody here has a terrabyte in their Paris box? :o)
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Kim.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>No insults. Check your facts before posting.
If your belief in Darwin is based on facts and evidence, then it is
open to questioning by facts and evidence. If it is based upon
a faith that cannot be questioned (i.e. Darwinism) then is it indeed
belief and is a religion, not science.
So, if you believe Darwin is right, then you have no problem with
looking at evidence right?
But if my questioning Darwin is insulting people, do you have a
religion. Looks to me like you do.
Either way, no one was insulted, at least not by me.
DC
"uptown jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>You started with the insults, Don. It is Don, right? I'm sorry if I'm
>mistaken....
>
>I vote we refrain from from any further rabid little partisan jabs.
>
>You used a jokey, silly post by one of the best-natured members of this
>forum to deride a very large group of humans who do not share your belief
>system. That is inappropriate behavior, at best, given the very specific
>nature of this forum, and especially given the general good nature of those
>who post here.
>
>Jimmy
>
>
>"DC" <dc@sayitaintso.org> wrote in message news:4313485e$1@linux...
>>
>> "Gary Flanigan" <garyf_94103@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Darwin's theory is showing no signs of becoming less authoritative,
>except
>> >in the minds of the rabidly superstious folks who comprise the American
>> Taliban.
>>
>>
&g
|
|
|
|
| Re: Who's got a Terrabyte? ;o) [message #57390 is a reply to message #57387] |
Mon, 29 August 2005 16:09 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>"Gary Flanigan" <garyf_94103@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not aware of any real scientific challenge. People are entitled to
their
>faith, but the Intelligent Design folks are just promoting Creationism under
>another name. There was a very good column in yesterday's NY Times pointing
>out that the folks promoting this admit themselves that they have put forward
>no scientific case. If people believe in this, fine, but it should be taught
>at home or at their churches.
Gary, it just isn't so. ID does not ask religious questions. it asks
scientific questions about the claims of Darwinism relating to
life's origins and existence. Creation Science attempts to derive
a complete scientific worldview from the Bible.
They are very different.
ID will not neccesarily lead to any personal belief, but it is carving
deeply into the Naturalistic philosophy that is at the heart of
much of their version of science.
Here is a response:
Daniel Dennett's Sham Science - Jonathan Witt
Sunday's New York Times carries an op-ed by philosopher Daniel C.
Dennett implying that intelligent design theory (ID) is a hoax
because it lacks scientific content. In the process, Dennett
uncritically perpetuates various falsehoods commonly used to prop
up Darwin's outdated theory.
For example, Dennett claims that "contemporary biology has
demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt" that natural
selection--"a tournament of blind trial and error"--"has the power to
generate breathtakingly ingenious designs." Yet natural selection
has never been demonstrated to produce even one new species,
much less new organs and body plans--the "ingenious designs" to
which Dennett refers. Natural selection, like artificial selection,
produces only minor changes in existing species.
In an attempt to provide evidence for the power of Darwinian
evolution, Dennett cites the eye. He claims that "we have detailed
computer models" to demonstrate how the camera-like eyes of
vertebrates evolved from primitive light-sensitive spots. Yet as
mathematician David Berlinski has shown, such computer models are
a myth.
Dennett also writes: "All it takes is a rare accident that gives one
lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its
siblings." But such mutations have never been observed! No matter;
Dennett's hand is faster than the eye, and he quickly concludes:
"Since these lucky improvements accumulate - this was Darwin's
insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better,
without any intelligent designer." Pull some imaginary mutations out
of hat, wave the magic wand, and presto!
Dennett goes on to claim that the vertebrate retina is inside out,
confirming "the mindlessness of the historical process." Yet as
biologist Michael Denton has shown, the orientation of the
v
|
|
|
|
| Re: Who's got a Terrabyte? ;o) [message #57392 is a reply to message #57390] |
Mon, 29 August 2005 16:35 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
he needs of Dennett's
atheistic philosophy, but it is sham science.
---------------
Even better, here is an article, also from the NYT, about what ID
actually is.
------------------------------
Design for Living The Basis for a Design Theory of Origins
By: Michael Behe
The New York Times
February 7, 2005
Bethlehem, Pa. — IN the wake of the recent lawsuits over the
teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the
merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the
scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological
systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent
design is and what it is not.
First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously
based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of
evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently
caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred
at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and
could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient
creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question
whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain
the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution
occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the
religious concept of a creator.
Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based
on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The
argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is
uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in
nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics
and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the
Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount
Rushmore.
Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but
even someone who had never heard of the monument could
recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the
intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible
in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century
clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that
the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists
disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do
agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.
For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA,
once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that
what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist
repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not
really.")
The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a
watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In
the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very
foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are
little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard
motors to push a cell through liquid.
In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular
machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein
Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors,
Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the
1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of
Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much
more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had
ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be
viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking
assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein
machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some
fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.
The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good
explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve
intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company.
Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of
design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection
acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however,
think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that
although natural selection can explain some a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 23 16:20:47 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01729 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
