|
Author
|
Topic: Why Evolution is a Fraud
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
There are a lot of strong points, so it is hard to narrow it down to just one.
Sutcliff cites a recent BBC article where students at a UK university tried to put the famous typing monkey theory into practice. Needless to say, the monkeys did not type anything that even remotely resembled Shakespear as Hardison predicted. They did not even type a legible word in English. However, the monkeys did succeed in using the computers as toilets. To help you gain some understand of why that has nothing to do with evolution, please refer to the third chapter of Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker. Or you could refer to my "MONKEY" page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/monkey.html, where I wrote my own "Weasel" program and then performed a mathematical analysis of the probabilities inherent in both the "single-step selection" model (what the "infinite monkeys" argument employs, in which the entire final product is generated at one time and must match the target in order to succeed) and in the "cumulative selection" model (which models evolution much better, in which multiple copies are made, each just a bit different from the parent, and selection occurs over several generations). To further help you understand why single-step selection does not model evolution and cumulative selection does, just think of how life works and think about reproduction. Then consider the idea that evolution is the natural result of what happens when populations of individuals produce offspring. BTW, here is my copy of the relevant quote from physicist Arthur S. Eddington's "The Nature of the Physical World: The Gifford Lectures", 1927:
quote:
... If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum. The chance of their doing so is decidedly more favourable than the chance of the molecules returning to one half of the vessel.
According to Wikipedia's article, "Infinite monkey theorem", at Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, that was not at all refering to evolution, but rather to statisical mechanics. He was a physicist, after all. According to the same article, in a 1931 book Eddington's rival, James Jeans, incorrectly attributed the monkey parable to a "Huxley", presumably meaning Thomas Henry Huxley. This became further corrupted to the claim that Huxley applied the example in his famous Darwinian debate with the Anglican Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce. In short, the "infinite monkeys" idea didn't have anything to do with evolution and was only pulled in and adopted to the argument later on. And also, since when did six constitute an infinite number?
The best point is the whole focus of the book; the author makes the unique point of breaking the tired old 'science versus religion' stalemate by forcing evolution to stand (or fall) on its own. Aside from a belief in God, Sutcliff does not mention religion at all. His arguments are soundly based on the weight of the evidence, not the consensus of the masses. I thought this was a refreshing approach. Nothing unique about such a stated approach. That is exactly what "creation science" has been saying ever since Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968. That they are not using religion, but rather science in opposing evolution. That is what they were saying in order to get around the courts, but what they were doing was indeed religious, as ruled in the Arkansas trial of 1981. You see, the Arkansas "balanced treatment" law made the mistake of including a definition of the proposed "creation model"; the sister Louisiana law made sure to leave out that definition, but the damage had already been done. Now, it seems most likely that Sutcliff is an "intelligent design" type, in which case he'd be much more stealthy about any religious basis to his position. But that still doesn't make his claim of "leaving religion out of it" any more true that the exact same claim being made by all the "creation science" activists for nearly four decades now. Edited by dwise1, : added quote tags Edited by dwise1, : Oops! Forgot second part.
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
Sutcliff, in fact, says that evolution should not be banned.
Really? He opposes evolution as a fraud (judging from your presentation of it) and yet, you say, he says it should not be banned. Could you please explain what he says and what he proposes? Please note the basic creationist approach to opposing the teaching of evolution in the schools: 1. Try to get evolution dropped from the curriculum. Since this step is most likely to fail or to run into legal problems (see Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968), it is commonly by-passed. 2. Call for "balanced treatment" by giving equal time to "the creation model". Ever since the courts found that this "creation model" is actually sectarian religious doctrine (from the famous 1981 trial over Arkansas Act 540 and the trials over a similar Lousiansa "balanced treatment" law), this step has also usually been by-passed because of its associated legal problems. However, in wake of those defeats, the creationists then turned towards "intelligent design" (ID) as a replacement for their "creation model" and so we see ID being employed when this step is taken. Hence, while the "creation model" is a game of "Hiding the Bible", ID came into play as a game of "hiding the creationism" -- same game, only a bit stealthier and more deceptive. BTW, it's also interesting to note that in those "balanced treatment" laws only required the teaching of the "creation model" if evolution was being taught. If evolution was not taught, then the "creation model" did not have to be taught. This would have achieved the goal of the movement, to prevent evolution from being taught. Or, as Paul Ellwanger, the author of the model bill upon which the Arkansas and Louisiana laws were based, had put it (in a letter presented as evidence in the Arkansas trial): "... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already." 3. If equal time is not given for "balanced treatment", then push for the inclusion of "negative evidence" against evolution, arguing for academic honesty, etc. As it turns out, this is just a stealthy way to accomplish step #2, because that is all that the "creation model" is, just negative "evidence" (meaning that that evidence and those claims and arguments are false) against evolution. EC, did I just happen to mention any of Sutcliff's position regarding the teaching of evolution?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2007 4:49 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
Re: Gullibles unite
Not closed, but rather experienced. Many of us have been around the park a few times. Some have even been around long enough to have watched that park being planted and the changes it's gone through over time. You're not showing us anything new, just the same old stuff that we've seen presented over and over again. For example, I started studying "creation science" back around 1980 and was very active in the on-line discussions on CompuServe in the mid-to-late 80's. We've had a lot of time to discuss it and to study and to learn. And to learn the claims and to see them refuted. How long have you been at it? Not trying to put you down, but if all you "know" is what you've read from creationist writers, then you've not gotten the whole picture. True story here, because I personally witnessed it. Back around 1990, a creationist fossil shop opened in a local mall and the owner held a few "amateur night" debates where anybody could get up and present their case. One young creationist, probably not even 20 years old yet, got up and announced that he had brand-new scientific evidence that would blow all you evolutionists away (sound like anyone we know? look in a mirror if you're not sure): the speed of light has been slowing down. Immediately, half the audience (the "evolutionist" half) erupted into uncontrollable laughter and, between gasping for air and wiping away the tears, started to explain en masse to the kid that his claim wasn't new but rather was over a decade old already and was completely refuted almost as soon as it came out and here's why that claim is false. The poor kid just stood there in shock. He thought that he had in his hands conclusive proof that would crush evolution and he discovered that instead he was holding dog feces (fortunately, they weren't fresh). He was discovering the hard way that his religious teachers had lied to him. As Scott Rauch, a former young-earth creationist, said:
quote:
I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.
That's why RAZD said in Message 2:
Thank you for proving that "there is a sucker born every minute" is still true. Because that's what happens all the time in the creationist movement. Most of those claims have literally been around for decades and they have all been refuted, usually within a few years after they came out. And yet those false and refuted claims continue to be repeated and published by creationists without any mention that they had ever been refuted. Indeed, some creationists will even boast that no evolutionist had ever been able to respond to those claims. I've also seen where a creationist will back off from a claim that's been conclusively proven wrong -- case in point is the ICR's moondust claim involving a "1976 NASA document, written well into the space age" that was actually written in 1965; No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html. However, nearly two decades later the ICR still prints and sells books that carry that moondust claim that they had stated they weren't going to use anymore. New creationists (the suckers born every minute) read those "new" books and they eat up the lies without ever being told what's wrong with them or that they've been refuted or that even the organization publishing that book had disowned some of the claims. That is, until they use some of those claims against somebody who does know those claims and their histories. And we both know how those encounters turn out.
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
EC, are you at all familiar with the history of anti-evolution, the opposition in this country to evolution? At No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/EarlyBird.html I've posted a copy of the handout I provided for a presentation I gave at our church's adult forum held before services. Please refer to it for more detailed information; here I will only give a very brief summary. Darwinism did fire up a lot of controversy among academics and church leaders when it first arrived in the 1860's, but within a couple decades it became either generally accepted or at least no longer seen as a threat to religion. However, this did not filter down to the masses who largely paid no attention to evolution until the early part of the 20th century when high school enrollment increased dramatically and more and more parents found their children being taught evolution in the science classes -- quite to be expected, since the textbooks were written by university professors. This, along with other social factors, led to a strong populist anti-evolution movement which culminated in victory for them in the 1920's. At that time, four states, including Arkansas, passed "monkey laws" which banned the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Another victory, the Scopes trial, also resulted in a public relations black-eye, after which (along with the death of their leader, William Jennings Bryan) they became much less visible. However, over the next four decades local anti-evolution groups continued to apply pressure to school boards and textbook publishers to keep evolution out of the schools. Then along came Sputnik. Eager to close the "science gap", improvements in science education were proposed and implemented, including in biology. In particular, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) developed a series of new high school biology textbooks, written by professional biologists. These books presented evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology and in a prominent and straightforward way. These books were published in 1963 and adopted by Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1965. Let's review the Arkansas "monkey law":
quote:
The Arkansas law makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory. Violation is a misdemeanor and subjects the violator to dismissal from his position.
Since writing that handout, I've read exerpts that state that the offending teacher's creditials would be revoked permanently and they would be barred from ever teaching again. Susan Epperson taught biology in Little Rock, Arkansas and was caught in a dilemma. She was required by the school board to use the BSCS books and if she didn't could be subject to dismissal. But if she did use them, then by the "monkey law" she'd be dismissed and would permanently be barred from her profession. So she and the Arkansas Education Association filed suit against the 1928 law. The court overturned the law, but the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld it, so in 1968, the case went before the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the law unconstitutionally served a sectarian religious purpose by prohibiting the teaching of evolution. This marked the end of the "monkey laws"; by 1970, all other "monkey laws" had been voided or repealed. This led to the creation of "creation science". The anti-evolution movement could no longer use their religious beliefs as the reason for barring evolution from the schools, so they claimed, falsely and dishonestly, to oppose it purely on the basis of scientific evidence with religion having nothing at all to do with it. Now during the period from the 1920's to that time, a number of anti-evolution writers had created a body of literature which attempted to find scientific evidence or explanations or support for their literal interpretation of the Bible; evidence for a young earth and for Noah's Flood were very popular topics. A notable contributor in the 1920's and 1930's was George McCready Price who developed much of what Henry Morris later (beginning in 1961) would develope and promote as "Flood Geology". And in the 1960's a number of biblical literalists were already developing their own literature. So when the starting gun fired, they were ready and primed. They took their creationist literature and superficially scrubbed all explicit religious references (mostly the Bible quotes) and present that as "purely scientific". They had started the game of "Hide the Bible". During the 1970's these "creation scientists" took their act on the road with their debates with which they'd drum up local support for "equal time" and "balanced treatment", all designed to get their false claims against evolution into the classroom in order to counter the teaching of evolution, or else to get the school boards to back down from teaching evolution under the threat of including their materials. Around 1980, this resulted in "balanced treatment" laws being passed in Arkansas and Louisiana. In 1981, trial was held in Arkansas and that law was struck down as being unconstitutional because it promoted sectarian religion. The same happened soon afterwards to the Louisiana law. As a result, the creationists returned underground to continue to press schools and school boards on the local level, often employing the "stealth candidate" tactic of getting creationists voted onto school boards without their true intentions being revealed during the elections. It was also at this time that new buzzwords surfaced, like "abrupt appearance theory" and "intelligent design theory." Now that the courts knew what "creation science" really was, the old dodge of "Hide the Bible" wouldn't work anymore. Now the new game in town was "Hide the creation science", a game played by using "intelligent design" claims and arguments. This also brought into the fray a new generation of anti-evolutionists who claim to not be creationists. However, such "non-creationists" as Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe try to argue for including God in scientific explanations. True, they don't make the young-earth claims that the biblical literalists insist on, but their motivation is still religious. I came across an essay by Phillip Johnson in which he stated that his opposition to evolution is because "it leaves God with nothing to do." This indicates that his theology is basically "God of the Gaps", a false theology which is apparently widespread among creationists, judging by "creation science" rhetorics in general.
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
Re: dwise1
dwise1...
I thought that meant "The Wise One" o.O David Wise. Common username generation practice is to take the first letter of the first name and prepend it to the person's last name, as in the "Brenda Utthead" joke in Dilbert. So my username at Hughes Aircraft in the mid-80's was dwise. We were doing some of our documentation on the new MacIntoshes, which were all floppy-based. So I labelled my data floppy with my username. When I graduated up to a second data floppy, it became dwise2 and the first one was renamed dwise1. Then one day a co-worker looked at my dwise1 floppy and started laughing. When I signed up for AOL, I had to come up with a screenname. So I went with DWise1.
Until I just saw your name in that link...
'Splain. Yes, that's one of my pages. Yes, it's based on research that I performed. Yes, I personally wrote to the ICR for the information on that claim. Yes, I personally went into the government stacks of the university library and personally pulled that document off the shelf. Yes, I wrote back with the truth that I had found and, yes, Gish ducked and dodged and then refused any further contact. Yes, I did try to write to Harold Slusher and, no, I never did receive a reply. Yes, it's all true. Why? Do you have a problem with it?
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
Re: dwise1
Sorry, it was just the way that your post came across. I was more curious than anything else And puzzled. When we only have words to communicate with, it can be difficult to imagine all the possible ways those words can be taken. Besides, it has been a common, but not too frequent, creationist tactic to attack my name rather than to respond to my questions. When I wrote to Kent Hovind asking for clarification on his solar-mass-loss claim, he persistently dodged my questions and twice tried to provoke me into a fight over my AOL screenname. So mistreatment by others had made me a bit too apt to perceive the same thing coming around again. Though it was much more wondering what I could have written on that page that would have been found to be so objectionable. Again, from many creationist hit-and-run hostile emails attacking me for things I never wrote -- "run-by fruitings", if you would. Glad the misunderstanding's been cleared up.
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
Making it understandable don't necessarily make it correct.
From your review of the book on Amazon.com:
quote:
Sutcliff makes the complex understandable with this unprecedented dismantling of evolution. The book is non-technical and easy-to-follow without talking down to the reader in its explanation of why evolution is mathematically and genetically impossible.
I would agree that it's a valuable contribution if an author is able to explain something complex so that it can be understood by the reader. But only if he does not distort it or convey completely bogus (dis)information! Here's a bit of an extreme example. Please bear in mind that I am in no way trying to associate the contents of this web page with you nor with Sutcliff. Rather, it is meant only to serve the purpose of demonstrating that giving someone a explanation they can understand doesn't mean that you've told them the truth. The page in question is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1260.cfm. I don't know what the rest of the Cutting Edge Ministries site is like, but this page appears to be way off-the-wall. It revolves around an Illuminati plot to usher in the Antichrist by igniting Jupiter to create a second sun in the sky. The Illuminati were going to do this on 06 December 1999 and they were going to accomplish it by crashing the Galileo spacecraft into Jupiter, whereupon its nuclear power modules would cause a nuclear explosion that would ignite the planet. Honest! I'm not making any of this up! BTW, Galileo was crashed into Jupiter on 21 September 2003 "to avoid any chance of it contaminating local moons with bacteria from Earth" ( Galileo (spacecraft) - Wikipedia) and there was no nuclear explosion. OK, on that page, they arrive at the question of how feasible it would be for Jupiter to ignite. In the section, "JUPITER NOT A PLANET, BUT AN UNLIT GASEOUS BODY", they report having consulted a NASA site, a university site, and writing directly to [what I assume to be] an astronomer and they present the information/responses they got. Each one informed them that Jupiter is not massive enough to ignite into a star; ain't gonna happen. They write:
quote:
We were still not sure exactly why Jupiter could not ignite, especially if it were hit with the huge atomic explosion of 1,750 Megatons, as occult sources are saying will occur when the 49.7 pounds of plutonium in the spacecraft Galileo is turned into the planet on December 6. After all, the largest thermonuclear explosion on earth was the Russian test of only 100 megatons in 1961. The answer we received from a Christian scientist, Dr. Kent Hovind, [
Dinosaur Adventure Land
] explained the science to us so we could understand. In the NASA excerpt, quoted above, we learned that "most" of the mass of Jupiter is Hydrogen and Helium, a most explosive mix, if it is mixed with sufficient oxygen in order to burn this mixture. Dr. Hovind says Jupiter does not contain enough oxygen in order to sustain the type of continuous burning that would be needed to produce a star. Now, we understand and now it all makes sense. No matter how large the initial explosion might be, the lack of sufficient quantities of oxygen would snuff out any resulting fire rather quickly.
The real explanation: stars "burn" by a fusion reaction in their cores which requires at least a minimum amount of mass to get the core hot enough for that reaction, and Jupiter is just not even close to having that much mass. Therefore, it can't ignite as a star. The bogus explanation: stars burn by combustion in their upper atmospheres. The only thing that would keep Jupiter from not burning is the fact that it doesn't have enough oxygen in its upper atmosphere. They couldn't understand the real explanation, but the bogus one suited them just fine. BTW, I found that page while researching what Hovind has to say about how stars, and the sun in particular, burn. Because I suspected that he believes that it burns by combustion, which is supported by another quote ( kent-hovind.com - , "Quacky Quotes", Basic Science I):
quote:
Listener's letter: [.....] It is said the Sun is a burning ball of gas, in other words fire. What is the one thing that fire needs to burn? Oxygen. How come that stars continue to burn if they have no oxygen to keep them burning? [.....] Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one. Source: Truth Radio 5 August 2003 @ 37:50
This is the guy who, in his seminar tapes, would repeatedly boast about being an expert on science and math because he had taught both subjects in high school for 15 years -- 'course, that high school was a religious one that he had founded and ran. I wonder if anyone has done a follow-up study on how his former students ended faring. Oh, and he also appears to believe that combustion results in the annihilation of the fuel being burned. Judging from his solar-mass-loss claim. Edited by AdminWounded, : Edited to remove excessively long url disrupting page width, converted into inline link.
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
|
Message 65 of 72 (402043)
05-23-2007 8:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by subbie
05-23-2007 8:07 PM
|
|
Re: Bullfrog!
Actually, it does tie in to the topic. Gish's claim ("Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS, 7 July 1982 -- cited at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html), after Dr. Doolittle related his story of the chimpanzee blood proteins all matching up exactly with human proteins until, much to everyone's relief, they finally found one that was different:
quote:
If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.
Dr. Doolittle's response: "Oh bullfrog! I've heard that gibberish before, I have to tell you." Gish's source for this claim made on national TV? A joke he had once overheard. Seriously. Which ties in to Sutcliff's use of The Onion in his research. I guess the subliminal message the creationists are trying to send us is that it's all a joke to them. BTW, I had just discovered the NCSE having just heard Fred Edwords mention it on the radio. I think that my first issue of Creation/Evolution Newsletter was the one carrying that story. I had tried to catch the PBS show, but cable service on-base was really flaky at that time in carrying PBS. The signal would just drop out in the evening and they couldn't find anything wrong with the circuitry when they checked it during the day. Fortunately, the signal came back right at the end so I was able to write down the info for ordering the transcript. Edited by dwise1, : added the BTW
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by subbie, posted 05-23-2007 8:07 PM | | subbie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by subbie, posted 05-23-2007 8:46 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
|
|
Message 67 of 72 (402071)
05-24-2007 2:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by subbie
05-23-2007 8:46 PM
|
|
Re: Bullfrog!
I'd be assessing it sight-unseen, but it seems to me like the author is serious, even though it's undoubtedly a hack job. Just like the vast majority of creationist books. Even its joke of a bibliography, which I'm sure the author and his fans think is impressive, sounds typical of creationist works. Reminds me of a friend's reaction in the early part of the first season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation". For most of the season we'd been hearing hearing about the Ferengi as this huge threat to the Federation and then finally they show those weaselly freaks for the first time. Next time we met, she said in utter disbelief, "These are the terrors of the Galaxy?" This book is a threat to evolution? Uh ha, yeah, right. Whatever. Wake me when something really happens.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by subbie, posted 05-23-2007 8:46 PM | | subbie has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by Taz, posted 05-24-2007 11:55 AM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
EC, you appear to be opposed to evolution. Like you want to do something about it. Like you want to fight evolution. Based on that assumption, I have a suggestion to make. Learn everything you can about evolution and about the associated sciences. Everything you possibly can. Not the junk that the IDists say about it. Not the rubbish that creationists spew out. All they do is misrepresent it and lie about it and about anything else they think is necessary. Don't learn the lies and the distortions and the misrepresentations, but rather learn what evolution really is and what evolutionary theory really says. Learn the truth! Thus armed, you will be able to find and attack evolution's actual weaknesses, not just some lies somebody dreamed up. You will be able to construct real arguments and real critiques, rather than some deceptive lies. Shoot for the real thing, not some flimsy strawman faade. So get out there and start learning.
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5952 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.7
|
Re: Speaking of the OP . . .
Speaking of the Internet and infinite monkeys:
quote:
RFC 2795: The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)
Abstract
This memo describes a protocol suite which supports an infinite number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in order to determine when they have either produced the entire works of William Shakespeare or a good television show. The suite includes communications and control protocols for monkeys and the organizations that interact with them.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2795.txtreleased on 01 April 2000 Also, from one of PBS' "Nerds 2.0" [name?] shows, I think they showed one of the first DARPAnet switches whose acronyms was IMPS. PS Explanatory note to non-geeks: RFC means "Request for Comment". RFCs form the documentation for the Internet, TCP/IP, and all the protocols involved. For example, if you want to know how a particular aspect of TCP/IP works, then you read the applicable RFCs. If you want to write a web browser or a utility that will get a file that forms part of a web page, then you will need to read the applicable HTTP RFCs to know how to talk to a web server. At times, especially on 01 April, a humorous RFC would get published. PPS In the ARPANet, IMP stood for "Interface Message Processor". IMPs formed the nodes of the network.
Interface Message Processor - Wikipedia Edited by dwise1, : postscript Edited by dwise1, : PPS
|
™ Version 4.2