herme3

That would be true if the pictures were raw data from the camera. However, these images were probably compressed for the video. The video is already 8 MB and takes about a minute to load on a cable modem. Can you imagine how long it would take to load the video if the images were not compressed? I've compressed the pictures on my web sites too. If you downloaded an image from my web site, and zoomed in, the image would be pixilated. If you took the original image from my computer's hard drive, and zoomed in, the image would be much more clear. I'm sure that in the video, they zoomed in on the original image and copied that into the video.

I think that some of those pictures look way too real to be anything you mentioned. What about the second picture of the dog? That is clearly a dog, but it was supposed to be dead... Also, you never explained the video clips that show ghost-like objects in motion. How can you see the shape of a person walk across the room, when nobody is in the room? What about the sound clips? They sound just like human voices.

I just found a ghost video online. It is at http://www.wimp.com/proof and it may take a little while to load. It has tons of pictures and videos that really look like ghosts. It explains many of these pictures in detail. It also has an experiment you can try that will allow you to see ghosts on your TV! Doesn't this prove that ghosts are real?

I use Adelphia, and all the other sites I visit have been working perfectly. Just recently, I've noticed this site is a little slow. Sometimes it is taking one minute to load a page. A little while ago, I got an error message. It seemed to be working fine yesterday.

Can you please explain how I have been lying?

The fact that you are calling God an "imaginary creature" is proof that you don't understand our beliefs.

Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance I agree with everything that you say. Please don't worry about Yourdadonapogos's insults. He is obviously not capable of understand our beliefs.

You obviously don't understand us. The thought of a supreme being with unlimited powers is something you can't understand. You can't understand it because you don't have unlimited powers. You think that just because you can't create a universe, God can't either. That is a fallacy.

Mr. Einstein2, I came up with a theory that is similar to yours. I'm not very good at math, but I think my theory make sense. It is at: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7733 However, many people in these forums is calling it, "rubbish". Since you are a scientist, can you please tell me what is wrong with my theory? How is my theory different from yours?

Have you tried opening Word? You need to click "ok" on all those error messages first. lol...

If anyone has read some of my posts in the Computer Sciences section, you will know that I don't like Windows ME. Anyway, I found a funny site that shows what Windows ME is like... http://www.deanliou.com/WinRG/WinRG.htm

Ok, I guess I will never fully understand evolution. Also, I'm sure you all will never understand creationism. I'm going to leave these evolution threads and return to the Computer Sciences threads...

Well, of course software developers are going to take advantage of the features of new operating systems. Most new applications aren't going to run on Windows 3.1 and that's because we want our new software to have more capabilities than the Windows 3.1 software. Let me provide another example. Would you buy a Nintendo GameCube game with NES graphics? Probably not. Software developers like to improve their software because newer hardware and operating systems allow them to. The older operating systems aren't high-tech enough to run the new software. Microsoft never makes things incompatible to require users to upgrade. However, I believe that it is important for older software to operate on newer operating systems. Windows XP did a great job with this. However, it is impossible for all older software to run on Windows XP. To allow 100% compatibility, you would need every single operating system ever made installed on your hard drive in a different partition. I imagine this would require significant hard drive space.

That was a bad decision by Apple. Windows XP and Windows 98 use completely different kernels. However, all of my Windows 98 software works perfectly with Windows XP. This is because Microsoft took the time to add lots of extra code to the kernel. Lots of this code isn't required to run programs built for the Windows XP kernel, but Microsoft was concerned about compatibility.

Ok, thank you for the explanation.

There is a very big difference between the type of evolution that is true, and the part that is still a theory. Changes in DNA structure have been studied and proven. All living things have small changes that occur from generation to generation because of natural selection. This is why skin color, and other characteristics are different in people from different geographical areas. However, there is absolutely no proof that humans evolved from the same ancestor as monkeys. There is absolutely no proof that all animals and people have a common ancestor. There is also absolutely no proof that says the Christian version of creationism is incorrect. You can't say that creationism is a bad argument just because you can't see God or prove that he exists. I'm not trying to preach here, but The Bible says you won't see God until you die. So how can you expect to see God now? Just because you can't see him, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. In fact, if you could see him, that would only be an error in The Bible.

Ok, but doesn't the monitor still have to process that information into a picture? Wouldn't it work better to have the graphics card in the monitor, instead of the computer?

Windows XP worked perfectly. In fact, I was very impressed the first time I started Windows XP.

Hmm... So those other operating systems aren't as good as you thought they would be... Go find your Windows restore disc.

What exactly is the purpose of video/graphics cards in computers? The digital data for a picture is generated in the computer, and it isn't translated into an actual picture until it reaches your monitor. Does the graphics card simply act as extra processing and memory for the image, so the CPU and RAM can focus on the rest of the program? Wouldn't the CPU still have to process the image, to separate it from the rest of the code in the program? Why doesn't it just send the image to the monitor, instead of the graphics card?

The GUI is only a small part of an operating system. The primary concern should be compatibility. Microsoft has always been careful to make sure Windows is compatible with software. Just look at all the extra work that was put into Windows XP to make it would work with programs for older versions of Windows. Windows XP is using a completely different kernel than Windows ME, and previous versions of Windows. However, Microsoft worked really hard to make sure that older programs would feel "comfortable" running on the new kernel. Most companies are too lazy to make their kernels compatible with software that was designed for other kernels. I'm sure that Vista will have great compatibility with most of the existing software. It will also have new features that will allow new software to be more complex.