Warning: session_start(): open(/tmp/sess_tr1jpdt68hk0ihf40p6dtqgp64, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /www/H01/htdocs/lib/base/lib_base.php on line 280
Double Trouble openDesktop.org
-
 KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
 apps.ownCloud.com ownCloud Applications 
--
-
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
--
-
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
--
-
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
 VLC-Addons.org Themes and Extensions for VLC
--
-
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
--
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com   
 
Home
Apps
Artwork
News
Groups
Knowledge
Events
Forum
People
Jobs
Register
Login
CONTENT
-


-
- Content .- Fans  . 

Double Trouble

  

KDE Wallpaper 1024x768

Score 29%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home
Double Trouble
zoom

Double Trouble
zoom

Double Trouble
zoom

Link:  http://
Downloads:  48
Submitted:  Nov 18 2003
Updated:  Nov 20 2003

Description:

The Christian community is often accused of being against science. Indeed, it is considered that the words "Christian" and "Science" are mutually exclusive.

However, an increasing number of top evolutionary scientists are coming forward affirming that the evidence points to intelligent design and/or creation, not evolution...and even implying that evolution is itself a religion.

This wallpaper (which centers around DNA and the 'double helix') is therefore submitted for encouragement to believers, who may or may not be aware of this movement in the leadership of the school of evolution.

Done in the Gimp.




Changelog:

Added second.
Added third with transparent background.




License: Artistic 2.0
Send to a friend
Subscribe
Other  Content  from timbrown527
Report inappropriate content



-
.

 Why here ?

 
 by vitamine on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
vitaminevitamine

This is no place for religious propaganda. This is a place about eye-candy for and related to KDE. Please don't post any stuff like this here.

However, it must be noted that 'scientists' don't have anything 'against' 'Christians'. It is just that religion (ANY religion) and science are two completly different things, and scientist consider them as such. The first deals with faith, and faith only, will the other uses observation and experimentation to formulate hypotheses about the way things work. Hypotheses can be tested, confronted with new data, and eventually refuted. Hypotheses that are not refutted will eventually make their way in what is called a theory: a complex of interrelated ideas about the causes of [insert you prefered scientific topic here]. An scientific hypothese must however be refutable. The existence of god as such is not a scientific hypothese, much less a theory: it cannot be refuted; i.e. there is no way to prove that god does not exist! It is something that you either accept or reject based on your own personnal beliefs. It as no place in science.

Moreover, arguments given by so-called 'scientific creationnists' indicate a clear misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution tells us and what it does not tell us.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Why here ?

 
 by timbrown527 on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home

Ummmm...Lipson is NOT a Creationist.

End of thread.

Christ is my LIFE...
The rest is just trumpets...(oh, and Linux!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html
Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Why here ?

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

Nor is Lipson an authority on evolution.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Why here

 
 by timbrown527 on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home

Oh, you again. Oh well.

--Tim

Christ is my LIFE...
The rest is just trumpets...(oh, and Linux!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Why

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

Yes, me again. Just correcting you, no offence meant although I do wonder how much research you do before you quote some scientists.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

 
 by timbrown527 on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home

Hmmmm...A physicist can't be an authority on evolution...interesting...especially considering how evolution relates to the laws of thermodynamics...

And of course, others would say that if you disagree with evolution, you can't be taken seriously as a scientist. They tried to fill me with that while I was working on my undergrad degree.

Just wondering if an evolutionary scientist has a change of mind...does that bring *evolution* or *the scientist* into question?

-- moving on...

--Tim

Christ is my LIFE...
The rest is just trumpets...(oh, and Linux!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

Hi Tim, can you name some recent articles by prof Lipson on the subject? There should be plenty if he is an autority. And yes, since prof. Lipsons field of research is (or was) optics and x-ray diffraction which is more likely to do whith crystal structures than evolution...
Oh and evolution has very little if nothing to do with thermodynamics. Do you even know what thermodynamics refers to? Guess you never finished that undergrad degree.......



-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

 
 by Soyburg on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
SoyburgSoyburg
Home

Hmmmm...A physicist can't be an authority on evolution...interesting...especially considering how evolution relates to the laws of thermodynamics...

Sure. And a butcher can be a great authority in the field of brain surgery, because he works on brains all the time... I think it is a bit more complicated than you might realize.



-
.

 Ashcroft Disciple

 
 by badger on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
badgerbadger

Lipson isn't a professor at Manchester University any more, either, at least according to their Web site. So, given your references to "top evolutionary scientists", I expect you'll also be coming out with references to similarly qualified "top geographers" in asserting that the Earth is flat. And as a finale, you'll presumably be drafting Harry Potter fans in as experts on aeronautics to claim that the Apollo missions were either faked in a Hollywood studio or just plain witchcraft.

And, by the way, it's fascinating that Darwin's stuff has held up pretty well over the years, unlike creationism... no, wait... "intelligent design"! We'd better not keep you in any prolonged discussion, however, as I'm quite certain that you have enough on your plate just moving those creationist goalposts all the time.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Ashcroft Discipl

 
 by timbrown527 on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home

*I expect you'll also be coming out with references to similarly qualified "top geographers" in asserting that the Earth is flat. And as a finale, you'll presumably be drafting Harry Potter fans in as experts on aeronautics to claim that the Apollo missions were either faked in a Hollywood studio or just plain witchcraft.

And, by the way, it's fascinating that Darwin's stuff has held up pretty well over the years, unlike creationism...*

Uh huh.

I'm sure that you know that in the real world things don't just make themselves; they are made.

Matter cannot be eternal -- the laws of thermodynamics state this. If you really think that things just pop into being...such as the initial inanimate matter from which life came from (Law of Biogenesis?) then I leave you to sit in your empty garage and wait for the vehicle of your choice to merely appear...after all, given enough *time* and *chance* the impossible becomes possible.

I say this because I KNOW you KNOW better. Life comes from life, and things don't just make themselves ex nihilo. Furthermore, an animal being chased didn't just say "Hey, I'm in danger, I'd better evolve a mechanism to defend myself!" You know that didn't happen and it couldn't survive to carry on evolution.

I always get a chuckle when I hear someone say things "have an appearance of design...but that's only the way it looks." Funny thing is, that is counter to the way we approach everything else. We *expect* things to be designed and have a maker *until* it comes to the things we see in nature around us. *Then* we get all mystical about how Something + nothing = everything.

Nope, I don't accept that. And, I think that the problem people have with theism is that, like Darwin, Epicurius and others, there is an accountability to be shunned...so we make up a story then try to make "science" fit it. Richard Lewontin, who is an evolutionist and DOES work with genetics, has plainly said that evolution is to be held to *in spite of the evidence, not because of it*.

So again, as I have said before, evolution is a religion based on faith in "chance" and *time*. Darwin is the "pope" and to turn away leads to excommunication from the "scientific faith." -- you are no longer credible as a scientist because you have "denied the faith".

No thanks, I'll stick with The One who made heaven and earth and died for me. Unashamedly.

Tim

Christ is my LIFE...
The rest is just trumpets...(oh, and Linux!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Ashcroft Dis

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

Tim, you keep on going about the laws of thermodynamics stating that matter cannot be eternal. Which of the four thermodynamic laws (including the zeroth law) states this?
Apart from that so called therodynamic law you also like to mention Einstein. This time I will quote Einstein:

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamilar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before"

Energy cannot be destroyed. If Einsteins theory is correct and mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing and if energy can not be destroyed (One of the fundamental laws of physics) than, contrary to what your so called law of thermodynamics states, matter must be eternal.....


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft Dis

 
 by gizmogadgetus on: Nov 20 2003  
Score 50%
gizmogadgetusgizmogadgetu s

Interesting that you would choose this point to contest creationism, you argue that matter and energy are manifestations of the same thing and therefore must be eternal. It follows then that since both may be modified to create the other (as evidenced by e=mc^2 wherein mass is converted to energy or solving for mass m=e/c^2) they are fundamentally the same. I believe Einsteins quote above agrees with this.

I agree with this, but where did the huge leap to saying matter is eternal come from? It follows from your own argument that matter may be converted to energy, and therefore it no longer exists as matter. I would say that since it's no longer matter, then the matter doesn't exist any longer (at that point in time, though it may be converted back from energy at some future point.) Since it is possible to have matter and energy nonexistant for some period of time(while they are converted to their other form) in the continuum, it also follows that neither can be eternal since in order to be eternal something must exist at all points in the time continuum (in this case eternal does not mean "can exist forever" it means "exists forever", extending both directions in time). I guess that means you proved Tims point about matter having to originate somewhere then(matter originating in its' conversion from energy)?

Strangely it would seem that matter originates in energy and energy originates in matter ( I believe this holds up well in modern physics, as specified by Einsteins statement that matter and energy are merely different representations of the same thing ). Since we know that matter can be created from large amounts of energy, it follows then that all matter could have originated from energy (Possibly similar to the "Big Bang" theory.)

I happen to believe in an all powerful God, one posessed of limitless energy. With that belief, physics does not seem to disagree with the possibility that a God with limitless energy could have created all matter in the universe. Don't be so quick to assume that science precludes a belief in a force beyond our understanding. Great scientists such as Maxwell and Boyle were also Christians. And some of today's greatest physicists (including Stephen Hawking) are proponents of the Antropic theory for explaining the exact levels of dark energy and dark matter in the universe.

Finally one more quote from Einstein before I go, "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind"

Doug


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashc

 
 by timbrown527 on: Nov 20 2003  
Score 50%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home

*I guess that means you proved Tims point about matter having to originate somewhere then(matter originating in its' conversion from energy)?*

Thanks...maybe you'll get through. I've tried...many times. Then again, if experience bears me out, you'll be discounted because you are a theist...

-- Tim

Christ is my LIFE...
The rest is just trumpets...(oh, and Linux!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashc

 
 by timbrown527 on: Nov 20 2003  
Score 50%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home

*physics does not seem to disagree with the possibility that a God with limitless energy could have created all matter in the universe.*

In other words, you are affirming the equation I mentioned in this thread:

SomeOne + Nothing = Everything.

I've heard this as a multiplication and not an addition...although I'm not sure what the difference is...

Thanks again,
Tim

Christ is my LIFE...
The rest is just trumpets...(oh, and Linux!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashc

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 21 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

"you argue that matter and energy are manifestations of the same thing and therefore must be eternal."

Hmmm..not quite. It's a combination of two seperate theories. The first is that energy is thought to be indestructable. The second is Einsteins mass-energy equivalence theory.

I guess that means you proved Tims point about matter having to originate somewhere then(matter originating in its' conversion from energy)?

Well, the big question is of course: where did matter/energy come from. I don't think there is an answer to that question. There is still a lot to learn about the universe.
Of course we can take the easy way and attribute it all to a god, just like our ancestors did when they for example needed to explain thunder. (Hmmm..must be some bloke with a really big hammer banging on the clouds) However since we don't know all theories should be considered however unlikely..including the existance of an higher power like a God. Personally I think the God theory just changes the question from "where did the universe come from" to "where did God come from"



-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashc

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 21 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

Whoops: "I don't think there is an answer to that question." in my previous comment should of course be: I don't think an answer to that question has yet been found. I need a coffee ;)



-

 Re: Re: Ashcroft Dis

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

O almost forgot..as for the question where energy came from in the first place...the answer is 42 ;)


bye Tim


Reply to this

-

 Re: Ashcroft Discipl

 
 by timbrown527 on: Nov 18 2003  
Score 50%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home

Excuse me; I'll make one correction... the evolutionary equation is

NoOne + nothing = everything.

This makes *no* sense.

Tim

Christ is my LIFE...
The rest is just trumpets...(oh, and Linux!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Ashcroft Dis

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 19 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

"NoOne + nothing = everything.
This makes *no* sense."

Hmmm..and

noone + nothing -> god -> everything

makes sense? Where did god come from?


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft

 
 by timbrown527 on: Nov 19 2003  
Score 50%
timbrown527timbrown527
Home

No,

SomeOne + Nothing = Everything. According to His Word, God is Self-sufficient and omnipotent to name only two of His many attributes.

I will say this to you *once more* only. God is Spirit, which can be eternal...I.E. outside of time. Matter cannot (theory of general relativity); matter wears out and disintegrates over time. This *again* has to do with the Laws of thermodynamics and Biogenesis. Jesus said He is *The Life*. He created everything. This is life from life; which fits the law of biogenesis, unlike evolution.

So far, you have not accepted this. What's the point in moving on and debating more? Like I have told Soyburg, I am not here for your entertainment...hence my hesitance to reply to your messages -- and I will do it no more.

Believe it or not, I wish you well.

--Tim

Christ is my LIFE...
The rest is just trumpets...(oh, and Linux!)

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html
Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashc

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 19 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

"SomeOne + Nothing = Everything."

Makes no sense.

"I will say this to you *once more* only. God is Spirit, which can be eternal...I.E. outside of time. Matter cannot (theory of general relativity);"

That is not what the theory of general relativity states. In fact it states the opposite!

"matter wears out and disintegrates over time."

No it doesn't. Don't forget: the universe is an amazingly dusty place. Large pieces of matter sometimes disintigrate into smaller pieces, it is not destroyed. Some matter is converted into energy but then again..mass and energy are both manifestations of the same thing.

"This *again* has to do with the Laws of thermodynamics and Biogenesis."

Get an education before you start mentioning thermodynamics.

"Jesus said He is *The Life*. He created everything. This is life from life; which fits the law of biogenesis, unlike evolution."

Unfortunately there is no law of biogenisis. At least not since the dark ages.

"So far, you have not accepted this. What's the point in moving on and debating more? Like I have told Soyburg, I am not here for your entertainment...hence my hesitance to reply to your messages -- and I will do it no more."

Judging by the other reactions noone thinks your entertaining.


"Believe it or not, I wish you well."
And I whish you would at least do some research before you start misquoting scientists. Good luck.



-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashc

 
 by Flanders on: Nov 21 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

Hi Tim,

Just some corrections to my previous comment. I wrote that one in a hurry since I had to catch a flight to Barcelona and I was late. (Very nice city by the way) First of all I said there was no law of biogenisis, at least not since the dark ages. That was not quite correct. There is no LAW of biogenisis, there is however a THEORY of biogenisis. Interestingly though this week it was reported that scientists have (again) created a virus from nothing but chemical building blocks. The virus acts exactly in the same way as the natural occuring virus. There is still a debate going on whether a virus can be considered to be a life form or not, but it won't be long before more complex structures like bacteria will be created from scratch.



-

 Re: Re: Ashcroft Dis

 
 by 0xdeadbeef on: Nov 20 2003  
Score 50%
0xdeadbeef0xdeadbeef

The equation of evolution is more like

something + change = something else.

What you are probably talking about is biogenesis, and even there your equation is wrong. This:

something + something = someone

describes it rather better. It is important to stress that 'someone' means something smaller than bacteria. There is another important equation is the generation of matter out of nothing, which is a known phenomenon in physics:

nothing = something + (- something)

meaning matter and anti-matter. Rather more complicated is the generation of energy, as we're only scratching the surface of that one. Evidence points to the existence of 'negative energy', but I have to admit I'm unable to explain that in detail, as physics is not my major.


Reply to this

-

 Eternal matter?

 
 by johnkess on: Dec 4 2003  
Score 50%
johnkessjohnkess

Someone asked why matter couldn't be eternal. A simple way to explain why this is impossible is: If matter is eternal, then it would have used up all energy an eternity ago. If you have something that you would like to point out to me that relates to this, post it and I'll try to get around to getting more in-depth.

And to the person that said that the statement "SomeOne + nothing = everything" didn't make sense, I have a question. Why not? I mean, think about this. If there is a God, then He created everything, including time itself. If He created time, that would mean He would have to exist outside of time. If God exists in timelessness, he is eternal. Eternity means that there is no begining and no end. Thus, God would have no begining (and no end, for that matter). He would always just BE. He would be a self-sufficient being, not needing to be created by someone or something. And because He is God, He can create anything and everything he wants to. Therefore, the statement "SomeOne + nothing = everything" does make sense. God can take nothing and create everything from that nothingness. I hope that makes sense to you.

He is risen.
Johnkess
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Eternal matter?

 
 by Flanders on: Dec 11 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

Someone asked why matter couldn't be eternal. A simple way to explain why this is impossible is: If matter is eternal, then it would have used up all energy an eternity ago. If you have something that you would like to point out to me that relates to this, post it and I'll try to get around to getting more in-depth.

Maybe you should take a look at Einsteins famous equation that deals with mass-energy equivalence. In it's simplest form the equasion is: E=MC^2 or ENERGY equals MASS times the speed of light squared.

According to Einstein energy can be transformed into mass and mass can be transformed into energy. Mass and energy are not conserved seperately, but are conserved as a single entity called mass-energy. Hence, energy and mass are considred to be equivalent concepts.

If you want to hear Einsteins explain this himself visit:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Eternal matter?

 
 by Flanders on: Dec 11 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

Who created God?


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Eternal matter?

 
 by Flanders on: Dec 11 2003  
Score 50%
FlandersFlanders

And to the person that said that the statement "SomeOne + nothing = everything" didn't make sense, I have a question. Why not? I mean, think about this. If there is a God, then He created everything, including time itself. If He created time, that would mean He would have to exist outside of time. If God exists in timelessness, he is eternal. Eternity means that there is no begining and no end. Thus, God would have no begining (and no end, for that matter). He would always just BE. He would be a self-sufficient being, not needing to be created by someone or something. And because He is God, He can create anything and everything he wants to. Therefore, the statement "SomeOne + nothing = everything" does make sense. God can take nothing and create everything from that nothingness. I hope that makes sense to you.

Several people said it made no sense. Your explanation doesn't change a thing about that. You are saying: God just is, was and has been, period. If you can believe that then why can't you believe life just came into existance by itself?

God(s) are definitly created...by man. They are the ultimate explanation for everything man doesn't understand.

O and Why did God need 6 days for the creation of Earth if he is outside of time?


Reply to this

Add commentBack




-
Linux42.org
-

Popular Groups
-

Newest Groups
-

FORUM
-

 
 
 Who we are
Contact
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Register
Twitter
Blog
Explore
Apps
Artwork
Jobs
Knowledge
Events
People
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Content RSS   
Events RSS   

Participate
Groups
Forum
Add Content
Public API
About openDesktop.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Advertising
Sponsor us
Report Abuse
 

Copyright 2007-2016 openDesktop.org Team  
All rights reserved. openDesktop.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
openDesktop is a trademark of the openDesktop.org Team