ICR Sues Texas

Computer gaming is the epitome of the personal computer world. Gaming software incorporates virtually every aspect of software design. Games push the hardware to its absolute limits. Serious gamers, of which hooah appears to be one, live and operate on the bleeding edge of computer technology. Not only must they be intimately familiar with the operation of every piece of hardware on their systems, including how those pieces interact with each other, but they must also know how to push their hardware beyond its design parameters, pushing the envelope even further. Central Processing Units (CPUs) are the central brains of computers. They are constructed of combinatorial and sequential binary logic circuits (my Air Force technician training included the detailed tracing of logic signals, AKA "chasing sparks", through the logic diagrams of a functional CPU). The sequential circuits require a clock, a square wave signal that steps the CPU through its instruction-acquisition and -execution sequences. The faster the clock rate, the faster the CPU will run. Obviously, if you want the CPU to run really fast, it needs to be able to handle a high clock rate.Every CPU is rated for the maximum clock rate that it can handle. This is one factor in determining how fast a computer is -- remember that the next time you shop for one. Overclocking is when you run a CPU faster than it is rated for. This is a rather dangerous thing to attempt, since overclocking can fry a CPU if you don't handle it right. IOW, you really have to know what you are doing and you really need to know how to test whether you have exceeded that individual CPU's own capabilities.With all due respect, you don't have a clue.And I have to agree with hooah's warning, your brain probably can't handle it.PS
Now then, just how is this dang-fool ID-science/creation-science supposed to actually function?Edited by dwise1, : PS

I am more of a hardware/overclocking junkie for the sake of having a badass rig that CAN play any damn thing thrown at it. I do game, but the hardware side is where I am at. But I digress........

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Gamers represent!

In the Air Force, I was a 30574 (Electronic Computer Repairman, Supervisor Level -- though the USAF has since transitioned to an MOS system). In the Navy, I was a Data Systems Technician Chief Petty Officer, until that rating was merged in with Electronic Technician (ET). In civilian life, I'm a Senior Software Engineer, working primarily in embedded software in C with utility test software in C++, though in the past I've done a fair amount in assembly (boy, that would certainly blow D.B.'s mind!). I have seen so many programmers who viewed hardware as some abstract concept, but as a technician (and an electrical engineering student, though as a computer science major I took the EE course just for fun -- in the microprocessor class, it was fun to see the proud EE majors flounder with such simple concepts) I have been down to the metal!My personal regret is that, as a family man, I have never had the time to devote to gaming (as a member of the military, gaming offers valuable training, but my military role has always been support (in Viet Nam, the Army's story was that for every single combat troop there were 100 support troops) and as a family man I have never had sufficient time for gaming, though I'm still working on my personal software project to support Larry Bond's Harpoon).Still, gaming is what drives personal computers out on the bleeding edge! My game is software, but the arena is still hardware!

{pop} "So, who else wants champagne? No? How about some spirits, then..."Perhaps they've finally realised that creationism simply isn't science, that everybody recognises that fact, and are prepared to focus on using faith instead of lying to achieve their goals?Well, I say "instead of", but to me they're barely differentiable.

Totally off-topic.So you're saying that the Great Independent State of Texas is not controlled in all things by Creationist yahoos bent on usurping all science curricula in all schools?Yet, from all the past threads and messages the impression was left that Texas was a hopelessly lost cause for Mom, Apple Pie and the Empirical Way.Maybe ... just maybe ... the good people of the Great Independent State of Texas are not all the morons they have been made out to be?That maybe there is rationality and good scientific reasoning in the populous?That maybe the creationist yahoos get the high press because, in Texas, all are free to be stupid or not and we like to laugh at the stupid so we put it in our newspapers so everyone can join in the fun, point fingers and laugh?Every few years we hear about "the textbooks" with the creationists wanting equal time or nutjobs wanting more "conservative values" and we all hear that and have a great laugh. But in the end these stupids lose, the textbooks are just fine, but you never hear that part in the media.You want real stupid? Go see Kansas. For god sake they actually did change their state-wide school curriculum for their creationist yahoos.How bout a li'l love for Texas, y'all.----------------------------------------------One of our local farmers had two cows that froze to death last August.It seems that they had crawled through a fence into a field of popcorn. It got so hot that the corn started popping, the cows thought that it was snowing and froze to death.-----------------------------------------------A Texas rancher was complainin' bout the drought.Well, all my stock tanks have gone dry and I have dug three water wells and so far all I have gotten is oil, so I guess I will have to sell my cattle for whatever the market will bring, take my loss and try again next year.------------------------------------------------A Texan took me duck hunting and we sat in a blind all day and never saw a thing. Then about sundown a lone duck flew overhead so high you could hardly see it. When it was directly overhead the Texan raised his shotgun and fired.
The duck kept right on flying.Then the Texan turned to me in amazement and said, "Son, yore witnessing a miracle. Thar flies a dead duck."------------------------------------------------There are a lot of folks that can't understand how we ran out of oil here in the USA. Well, here's the answer: It's simple. Nobody bothered to check the oil. Didn't know we were getting low.Of course the reason for that is geographical. Most of the oil is in Texas and all the dipsticks are in Washington.---------------------------------------------------Ya gotta love a people that can take the bull and make a yarn from it.

Your not paying attention, you are anticipating what you want to hear. I am saying that the coherent, logical and law abiding observable evidence, implies ORDER. That is observable and testable, in the same way the change in strata implies evolution.Both are direct evidence of the fact that a thing has and did take place. One implies definate design and one implies change over long periods of time.Neither is provable absolutley, but the direct evidence for order and law is irrefutable. Now watch and pay close attention. How will you or how could you set out an argument refuting ORDER, CONSISTENCY in living organisms that is visible and demonstratableThe ORDER and the rules it follows is direct evidence of design, in the same way gradual change in strata, is evidence of some form of evolution.This why there have only been the two logical possibilites since time began, they are the only two testable hypothosis This is comical. If order is not what it is, both visible and demonstratable, please explain to me, what it is Of course I do. My position is that if you can explain the order you see in organisms as a PRODUCT OF THEMSELVES, that is, not simply explain how they work, but show that they arose by and of themselves and show that those materials and its orginization have no originator, you will have won the day.My guess is that you cannot. Neither position is provable absolutley, but both derive information from solid scientific evidence , which of course should be included in any science classroom.Organization is DIRECT EVIDENCE of design. Not liking that point is not the same as setting out an argument against its validity Now your getting itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The rules are the same, that is the method I use is the same scientific application as yourself to observe ORDER AND LAW the application of the rules by yourself are what are differentYou say mine is not an applicable or scientific endeavor to obtain information and evidence, but it is because it is observable, testable and predictableNo differentiation is required for observing and testing ORDER, it is obvious by direct observation and testing. In these instances you are using the relative design these things produce, to CONSTITUTE and they do to a certain degree, the real order that is observable and testable is in the micro-organisms that produce these relative designs.As I said I stated before, Im a relative good looking stud designed by microscopic organisms, the relative product which shows order is not AS testable for order as its microscopic designersYour RELATIVE design, as probably a nerd, (as most of the characters on this site)was produced by organisms that display magnificent order, which is direct evidence of design, whether you like it or not.Just kidding about the nerd part. In school and college I was both a nerd abuser and nerd protector. I had many nerd friends, but I also put no small amount of nerds into huge tumble dryers, all the while never actually causing any permenent damage, except mental perhapsLove, DawnEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You seem to me to be a one deminsional character, try to stay focused. The topic is EVIDENCE in a certain direction. Im saying the obvious ORDER, which is observable and testable, by following its functions AND RESULTS is direct evidence FOR PURPOSEI dont need to produce a designer or prove purpose, to demonstrate that ORDER, CONSISTENCY AND LAW are present, which are evidence of the above mentioned items, the same way, change implies but does not prove the entirity of evoltionary processBut on the other hand its easily demonstratable that each organism produces an end result both by itself and in harmony with other organisms, why is that not a purpose?it obviously functions in a logical and orderly fashion to produce an intended purpose, can you show it otherwise?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I started gaming (back when I had the time) with id Software's Catacomb, then Castle Wolfenstein, then Wolfenstein 3D. I think I still have my Wolfenstein 3D installatino disks somewhere.I remember overclocking 486s, plugging 486 overdrive chips into 386 motherboards, trying to get the best 1MB video cards I haven't kept up, but one of my proudest achievements was playing through Doom at nightmare level using only the keyboard and no hacks.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

Hi Dawn Bertot,No one's arguing there's no order in nature. What we're saying is that as far as we can tell, any observed order in nature is the product of matter and energy following the physical laws of the universe. Some other origin of this order can only be considered realistically possible once it's been observed and researched and established to actually exist. Then it could be considered part of science, ICR could teach it, and Texas could accredit it.We observe the entire life cycles of many, many different types of organisms, including ourselves, and never has anything been observed that was not just matter and energy following the laws of nature. This is true of the part of the life cycle where organisms compete to survive and procreate, and it is even true of the specific part of the life cycle concerned with reproduction where heritable mutations occur. There is no evidence of any kind of outside intervention at the current time.--Percy

I am not anti science, neither are any of the other creationists. Logic is the oldest form of science, when we apply simple logic by observation, to the natural world we observe ORDER, TESTABILITY AND PREDICTION, consistency and laws operation in an orderly fashion, that is called science, not all science but science nonetheless.I dont need to keeping doing test on my computer to know its operating in an orderly, designed fashion.How many test do i need to conducted to demonstrate the presence of ORDEREdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Not if rules of evidence all followed closely. If there is order as you admit and its the product of matter and energy, what is the product of energy and matter? Energy and matter when broken down demonstrate the same order.Unobserved behavior in this instance creation of these items is no reason to believe that they were not designed.The simple rule of evidence, when applied correctly and across the board is that if i were a gasous form of life never having experienced or seen human life and came across a computer and I observed its functions and operation, the rule of evidence would be to assume because it has order it was designed.And never having ever experincing that form of life, I would have been correct.Evidence is what you can establish as evidence logically, not simply scientifically. this rule of evidence is valid, with no fear of contradiction. thats how evidence worksEvidence is not limited to the so-called scientific method.If some board never gives accreidation to someother group, this does not imply that order is NOT evidence of design. IT IS, BOTH SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLYReality and logic dictate evidence, not some contrived method, even though its basic tenets are valid. theres more to it than that Thats because you have a limited understanding and application of what evidence is actuallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How about you take it to the thread I mentioned? Or are you afraid of the science section because you will actually need to provide evidence? Put up or shut up and stop talking about your computer because you've been outclassed in that department.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

I did respond to this bantering, so why dont you just put in simple question form what is is I need to do. i dont like to play games,not even cardsDawn Bertot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------